Posted on 04/07/2016 2:47:58 PM PDT by PoliticallyShort
Have you followed much of the writings on banking and secret societies? That regime got us/the west pretty much from the 1890’s to WWII, then I think we contaminated ourselves with various flavors of statists after the war and accelerated the decline.
The left is merely running out the clock on the last generations that could lead and operate effectively in a CW environment...
At the passing of the 14th Amendment.
The 14th amendment was an abomination. Both in how badly written it was, and in the manner in which it was passed.
It has had horrible consequences and has detrimentally affected a wide range of issues in this nation.
It may have been well intentioned, but it has certainly led the nation into sociological Hell.
But to be fair, most of the Amendments after the first original 10, were mistakes.
1886...
In 1886, . . . in the case of Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that a private corporation is a person and entitled to the legal rights and protections the Constitutions affords to any person. Because the Constitution makes no mention of corporations, it is a fairly clear case of the Court’s taking it upon itself to rewrite the Constitution.
Far more remarkable, however, is that the doctrine of corporate personhood, which subsequently became a cornerstone of corporate law, was introduced into this 1886 decision without argument. According to the official case record, Supreme Court Justice Morrison Remick Waite simply pronounced before the beginning of arguement in the case of Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company that
The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are all of opinion that it does.
The court reporter duly entered into the summary record of the Court’s findings that
The defendant Corporations are persons within the intent of the clause in section 1 of the Fourteen Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
So if I understand you correctly, it is just more fallout from the badly written 14th amendment.
Which was a consequence of the Civil War.
Normalcy bias. Nobody wants to admit or believe how bad it is and are unable to accept that to save it means how they live as they do now will never be anywhere near what they are used to.
We keep passing on to the next generation.
Now, that ruling also calls in to question the whole issue of what “person” is too, as it falls under the 14th Amendment which at the time was applicable to freed slaves. Some argue (well I might add) that that is where the clear delineation was drawn between State citizens and U.S. Corporate citizens.
In a nutshell, the line is that if you’ve “opted in” to federal corporate citizenship by accepting any number of “benefits” then not only have you agreed to their rules, but you’ve essentially (but unlawfully and unknowingly) “given up” your Unalienable rights as outlined in the original constitution of the united States.
Bkmk
I can agree with that. But the 14th is unique in that rather than dealing with a specific application of law, it changes the relationship of the people with the law. By introducing a "person" with non-original attributes, it required the Court to define that person in such a way as to not be contradictory with the rest of the Constitution. The Court's solution, through rulings including the Slaughterhouse cases, was to incorporate human beings.
That's why, since then, you really cannot quote true rights in court without being sanctioned. In fact, the court generally won't entertain consideration for any rulings prior to the 14th Amendment. Common law still exists, and people with rights still exist. They just have no standing in statutory courts. Ironically, if you really want to piss off a judge in America, just invoke your rights.
Well, yes, and the crappy court uncontested assumption.
A healthy dose of uniform commercial code goes a long way to understanding things that seem unconstitutional in the bizarro reality we’re in...
Good assessment.
I never thought of it that way. Sadly, that idea seems correct.
Thank you humblegunner. I had hopes that we had a new writer that posted to Free Republic. Alas, that was not to be. I will never click on another ‘PoliticallyShort’ thread again.
Things got to change in America—Trump is an answer—and aa better one than Civil War. Vote Trump! Its our only hope.
Yes, but what about the children?
Hollywood
Thank you for the informative reply, and sorry that I couldn’t get back to this sooner. You might find this related article to be interesting, and the link should get you there without the usual redirect away from the article and to the FT front page instead.
US faces ‘disastrous’ $3.4tn pension funding hole
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiA2bTQ_4TMAhWFtIMKHSKqA8QQqQIIHTAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ft.com%2Fcms%2Fs%2F0%2Fc9966bea-fcd8-11e5-b5f5-070dca6d0a0d.html&usg=AFQjCNHS8pfl_FkPDx_sPj8hioWjvbeKvg&bvm=bv.119028448,d.amc
I suspect that we’ll see austerity measures (mostly spending cuts and repeals of regulations) forced by local government bankruptcies before very long, and oil prices should be going up noticeably again sometime before 2018. It will not likely go down during our lifetimes (or those of our children) to what we’ve recently seen (depletions, costs of production,...).
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.