Skip to comments.Citizen versus citizen
Posted on 11/19/2014 5:12:10 PM PST by djf
We have all heard that America is "One nation, under God..." and tend to believe it.
Benjamin Franklin was asked when he emerged from the Constitutional debates what was the outcome... Franklin, always curt and concise, replied "A Republic - if you can keep it"
Franklin didn't mention anything about democracies or the will of the people or anything else.
The United States Constitution was a blueprint for that republic. It functioned well for almost one hundred years.
Functioned "well for almost one hundred years"? you ask. What the hell has gone on for the last hundred or so years?
It will take a bit, but I will explain. And take heed. All of this is supported by standing Supreme Court decisions and statutory law.
It basically began with the civil war. Whether you believe that war was fought to free the slaves or whatever, it proved to be the collapse of the republic. In 1866, the federal government passed "the civil rights act of 1866". Now this was one of the first times the phrase "citizen of the United States" was used. The civil rights act of 1866 says that it is unlawful to deny or disparage the civil rights of a United States citizen. The rights covered were to sue and be sued, to own property, etc. This strikes some as well and good, as it strikes me.
But there is a problem... while this legislation may be well and good, it is an infringment. It infringes on the Ninth and Tenth amendments. It infringes on the power of the state to determine what is right and wrong.
While many might see some benefit to standardizing definitions, in some circumstances, it makes no sense whatever. For instance instead of talking about the right to be sued, what if it was the speed limit? Does it make sense to have the same speed limit in, say Maryland, than in Nevada? Obviously not.
It is important to note that the federal government DOES NOT NOW AND DID NOT THEN have the power to say who is a state Citizen! It DID NOT have that power before the covil war, and the 14th amendment did not give that power to them. So what did it do?
It composed and rammed through the 14th amendment. The 14th amendment "nationalized" the civil rights act of 1866.
Up until the 14th amendment, there were only two types of (C)itizens - natural born citizens, and naturalized Citizens.
After the 14th amendment, there are three types. Natural born Citizens (Citizens of a state), naturalized Citizens (Citizens of a state who had been naturalized), and citizens of the District of Columbia.
For the first time, the District of Columbia was seen as a political entity with It's OWN CITIZENS who have privileges and immunities, not the rights of a state Citizen.
And this is where the law is today. It can easily be confirmed by checking the Annotated Constitution. What it all means is unknown, but there is no doubt of one thing:
President Obama, if he does some sort of blanket amnesty, IS NOT CREATING CITIZENS IN A CONSTITUTIONAL SENSE!
Note to all:
This essay is a somewhat small part of a larger idea I have had for some time, how America was conquered and who did it.
But die to the pending announcement of zero tomorrow night, I kinda hacked something together.
Whether or not I finish America conquered, I have no idea.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.—That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, —That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.—Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States.
You are right on regarding the 14th Amendment——passed in the wake of the Civil War by intimidation and favor (like Obamacare) and intended to address the citizenship of former slaves, not waves of illegal immigrants. A good start would be its repeal.
Interesting fact about the Civil Rights Act of 1866 is that it was introduced by Lyman Trumbull, a politician that bounced between the Democratic, Liberal Republican and Republican parties, being a Democrat at the end of his career. He was also a co-author of the Thirteenth Amendment.
You are quite correct re: the 14th Amendment.
It provides for there being “citizens of the United States”, it DOES NOT SUPPLANT the Citizens of the states.
These are two very different animals indeed.
J. Budziszewski at the University of Texas has written at length on the 14th Amendment and its misappropriation in judicial review.
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.