Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: RKV
If you read the Senate debate on the 14th, then it is pretty clear that is what was intended - application of the BOR to the states

So if the BOR didn't apply in the states until the 14th, then were did it apply until that time? Washington DC?

My understanding is that some southern states were arguing that the BOR didn't apply to them, because they wanted to retain slavery (this was immediately after the civil war). It was clearly a bogus claim in the first place, and the 14th is basically saying "the BOR applies within the United States", Duh.

24 posted on 01/15/2006 9:44:32 AM PST by narby (Hillary! The Wicked Witch of the Left)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies ]


To: narby
The BOR only applied to the federal government. The federal government, for example, could not restrict the freedom of the press -- but the states could, and did.

The 14th amendment was part of a trilogy (13th, 14th, & 15th) to deal with the newly freed slaves. The slaves were not citizens of any state and consequently had no state-protected rights or privileges. The 14th amendment made them "citizens of the United States", and extended some fundamental privileges and immunities to them.

63 posted on 01/15/2006 11:32:50 AM PST by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies ]

To: narby
So if the BOR didn't apply in the states until the 14th, then were did it apply until that time? Washington DC?

Yes. As well as forts, ports and any land given to the federal government by a State.

and the 14th is basically saying "the BOR applies within the United States

No, the 14th is saying you are a FEDERAL citizen, or artificial 'person', instead of a NATIONAL citizen, or human being.

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

"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:

______________________________________________________________________

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. Anthony 24 Fed. 829 (1873) "The term resident and citizen of the United States is distinguished from a Citizen of one of the several states, in that the former is a special class of citizen created by Congress."

______________________________________________________________________

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

158 posted on 01/15/2006 3:47:56 PM PST by MamaTexan ( * GOD * -- not government...... is the foundation of law in our American Republic!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson