Site hosted by Angelfire.com: Build your free website today!

DISCUSSION OF THE 14TH AMENDMENT
To The United States Constitution

Amendment XIV - Citizenship Rights

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.

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.

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.

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.

5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.  " U.S. Const. amend. XIV.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution (Amendment XIV) is one of the post-Civil War amendments (known as the Reconstruction Amendments), first intended to secure rights for former slaves. It includes the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses among others. It was proposed on June 13, 1866, and ratified on July 9, 1868.[1] It is perhaps the most significant structural change to the Constitution since the passage of the United States Bill of Rights. The amendment provides a broad definition of national citizenship, overturning the Dred Scott case, which excluded African Americans. It requires the states to provide equal protection under the law to all persons (not only to citizens) within their jurisdictions, and was used in the mid-20th century to dismantle legal segregation, as in Brown v. Board of Education. Its Due Process Clause has driven much important and controversial case law regarding privacy rights, abortion (see Roe v. Wade), and other issues.

The other two post-Civil War amendments are the Thirteenth Amendment (banning slavery) and the Fifteenth Amendment (banning race-based voting qualifications). According to Supreme Court Justice Noah Swayne, "Fairly construed, these amendments may be said to rise to the dignity of a new Magna Carta."[2]

It is indeed most tragic that there are some self anointed so called Liberty Activists Gurus who opine that the 14th Amendment is a horrible amendment. I am well aware of their approach and their reasoning-to-result. These people are Flaming Fools. I do not have the time to elaborate why I am correct on this. I, and another attorney, have tried to explain this to Rick Stanley, and others, more than once, to no avail.

To ridicule the 14th Amendment, to try to abandon it, to surrender its protections, to inexplicably persists with misconstruing it, is analogous to using a blast from a 12 guage shotgun aimed at your jaw to floss your teeth.

The 14th Amendment did not make anyone a new type of citizen or a Federal citizen.

The 14th Amendment states that, "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." That is an absolute, categorical, no room for wiggle room, command, a bold, blanket, absolute command in favor of individual liberty. Who, in their right mind, has a meaningful, Liberty rooted, legitimate, quarrel with that language? If any one does, I want to hear of it.

Did you note ". . . any person . . . ."? How is "any person" limited to Blacks or People of Color or any race or any minority?

The 14th ends with, "The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."

The fact that Congress does not enforce the 14th against the states does not mean there is anything wrong with the 14th. It only means that there is a major problem with Congress . . . and citizens who do not stand up for their rights, per the Bill of Rights, the Constitution, and the 14th.

And, I am now convinced--again--that I thoroughly wasted my time in writing this email because far too many are Cement Heads regarding the Fourteenth Amendment.

Written by -- "Peter Mancus, just another dumb *@! attorney who graduated with a BA With Honors in Political Science from the University of California and a Doctors of Jurisprudence from the University of California, who has also been studying these issues fairly intensely for the last 38 years, but, then again, I am just an attorney, ...another damn good for nothing attorney. One of the best things to come out of the 1861-1865 War Between the States was the 14th Amendment, but so many have never read it, do not understand it, misconstrue it, reject it, and do not use it wisely to enforce their rights. Amazing. Absolutely amazing."

RICK STANLEY NOTE:  He [Peter Marcus] believes that the 14th Amendment gives us equal protection. It does not, in my opinion and the opinion of many others who have studied the history therein.  In fact, when attempting to use the 14th Amendment once at the Federal Court of Appeals in my Denver gun charges, I was told that I  could not use it as I was not a black minority citizen.  In fact, I believe as do many others that the 14th Amendment made us all a "new type" of citizen, a "federal citizen" without benefit of constitutional rights, but  they in turn installed "civil rights" at that time "in place of constitutional rights" with that Amendment.  Who is right and who is wrong?

I will say this and you know this to be true: Constitutional rights are an illusion today.  Why?  Why do courts "not allow" a defendant to mention the constitution, and our constitutional rights, either pro se, or by lawyer? Isn't the federal Constitution the Supreme Law of the Land, and the rights enumerated therein?  Or has something happened, something insidious by lawyers and politicians?  What was the mechanism besides pure tyranny?  I, and many, many others believe it was the 14th Amendment, installed after the Civil War.