Kelo and the 14th Amendment: Exploring a Constitutional Koan

Vanity | 8/21/05 | Mark Edward Vande Pol

[antisocial]

I'm aware of that, but it has since been interpreted to allow citizenship for illegal aliens.

[antisocial]

I don't know why it hasn't been repealed, but no republican I know of will even consider it except Ron Paul.

[Old Professer]

For example, if a group chooses to get together as a church, they rightly have the option to exclude those who express the intent to corrupt the principals and practices of that faith;

You did mean principles, didn't you?

[Carry_Okie]

You did mean principles, didn't you?

Yep. I typo that one from time to time and spell check doesn't pick it up.

[inquest]

I'm not exactly sure what "equal protection" meant in the 1860s

The entire first section of the 14th amendment was basically copied and condensed from the Civil Rights Act of 1866. The equal-protection clause is basically a rewriting of the requirement from the Act saying that all citizens, black or white, shall have the same right "to full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of person and property, as is enjoyed by white citizens".

That's all "equal protection" means. Judges nowadays have just focused on the first word of that phrase and glossed over the second. Many of them have read it as a virtual mandate for Marxism.

[Carry_Okie]

On second thought, considering what we've seen of priestly behavior recently, it does carry a certain double entendre, n'est ce pas?

[freepatriot32]

Rights, farms, environment ping.
Let me know if you wish to be added or removed from this list.
I don't get offended if you want to be removed.

List of Ping lists

[freepatriot32]

Libertarian ping.To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here

[E.G.C.]

BTTT!!!!!

[Carry_Okie]

Second Amendment rights ping.

[Fiddlstix]

[zendari]

The entire first section of the 14th amendment was basically copied and condensed from the Civil Rights Act of 1866. The equal-protection clause is basically a rewriting of the requirement from the Act saying that all citizens, black or white, shall have the same right "to full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of person and property, as is enjoyed by white citizens".

---

So basically "protection" had to do with, well protection. I suppose that makes too much sense in today's day and age, where anyone who isn't an abortionist is branded as a right winged radical.

[inquest]

I suppose that makes too much sense in today's day and age

Yup, obviously we're not qualified to sit on the high court, if all we do is read the document without inventing new meanings. Buncha yahoos we are. ;-)

[sageb1]

Thanks for posting this. I've read it through once and will hang on to it for future reference. The questions you posed should be food for thought and discussion for all of us here.

One question you asked was:

"Given that Islam specifically mandates imposition of Sharia law in conflict with the Constitution, what are the limits to the free exercise clause?"

I've posted a similar thought in various threads on Islam and its compatibility with democracy/freedom in the past few months. You are correct. Islam IS its own state with its own sharia law, therefore, it is my contention that American Muslims are riding a very fine line indeed in this country, as per the Constitution, no state can be formed or exist within a state. (exceptions being Native Americans and Alaskans and of course, this is what native Hawaiians are clamoring for). However, no similar claim can be made by Islamists and sharia law courts in this country would be unconstitutional.

[Old Professer]

That same thought is what stopped my speed-racer reading machine dead in its tracks.

[MamaTexan]

IMHO, the fourteenth Amendment is nothing more than a bogus legal illusion....

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.

There are actually THREE reasons this Amendment is a legal AND lawful impossibility:

__________________________________________________________

1. As you said, the words 'person' and 'natural person' are two totally different things. A 'natural person' is a human being, and a 'person' is an artificial person, or corporation.

Black's Law Dictionary ;
"natural person" : A human being, as distinguished from an artificial person created by law.
"artificial person" : An entity, such as a corporation, created by law and given certain legal rights and duties of a human being.

Government does NOT have the ability to attempt to blend the two disparate types of *law* (natural law / positive law) that comprise our Republic. It is ultra vires, or beyond governments legal scope of power and authority.

__________________________________________________________

2. The 'jurisdiction' of the United States government is given in the Constitution in Article 1, section 8, paragraph 17:

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;

So no one is subject to the legal 'jurisdiction' of the federal government OUTSIDE of Washington D.C., or any military base or port.

__________________________________________________________

3. There is a HUGE legal difference between the terms 'citizen of the United States' and a United States citizen.

The First term was originally 'a citizen of one of these united States', meaning they were a State Citizen.

Today, everyone answers yes when asked "Are you a US citizen?" on those pesky government forms. What hardly anyone realizes is that a US Citizen is, by *law*, a fictitious artificial creation that places you in the ASSUMED jurisdiction of the United States government....a jurisdiction that IS legally binding UNLESS you refute it for lacking knowledge, consent and full disclosure..

-----------------------------------------------

"A citizen of the United States is a citizen of the federal government ..."
(Kitchens v. Steele 112 F.Supp 383).

______________________________________________________________________

"... a construction is to be avoided, if possible, that would render the law unconstitutional, or raise grave doubts thereabout. In view of these rules it is held that `citizen' means `citizen of the United States,' and not a person generally, nor citizen of a State ..."
U.S. Supreme Court in US v. Cruikshank, 92 US 542:

______________________________________________________________________

In 1887 the Supreme Court in Baldwin v. Franks 7 SCt 656, 662; 120 US 678, 690 found that:
"In the constitution and laws of the United States the word `citizen' is generally, if not always, used in a political sense ... It is so used in section 1 of article 14 of the amendments of the constitution ..."

______________________________________________________________________

The US Supreme Court in Logan v. US, 12 SCt 617, 626:
"In Baldwin v. Franks ... it was decided that the word `citizen' .... was used in its political sense, and not as synonymous with `resident', `inhabitant', or `person' ..."

______________________________________________________________________

14 CJS section 4 quotes State v. Manuel 20 NC 122:
"... the term `citizen' in the United States, is analogous to the term `subject' in the common law; the change of phrase has resulted from the change in government."

______________________________________________________________________

U.S. v. Rhodes, 27 Federal Cases 785, 794:
"The amendment [fourteenth] reversed and annulled the original policy of the constitution"

______________________________________________________________________

Hague v. CIO, 307 US 496, 520:
"... the first eight amendments have uniformly been held not be protected from state action by the privileges and immunities clause" [of the fourteenth amendment]

__________________________________________________________

So you see, Fourteenth Amendment citizens are NOT protected by the Bill of Rights. The Amendment was written NOT to 'free the slaves' but so that our government could skirt the 'Congress shall make no law' parts of the Constitution and, consequently, enslave us all.

[Carry_Okie]

I was aware of most of what you wrote here, particularly as regards property rights and the need to sue in the correct court for Federal takings.

You do have a nice collection of references there, thank you.

[zendari]

Hmph. Well, I'm only 19, young, a strict constitutionalist, and VP of College Republicans, maybe I should send my resume to Bush to be Rehnquist's successor.

[MamaTexan]

I figured you probably were aware of it all, but it's great to discuss this sort of thing with someone who understands it!

SO many people (including most FReepers) just don't have a clue!

:)

[Frank_2001]

Excellent article!