Posted on 05/20/2006 12:02:06 PM PDT by tpaine
The Fourteenth Amendment made a lot of changes, some startling and not at all obvious from the actual words.
Examples?
The modern American corporation.
Was enabled by the 14th?
Got any proof? -- It's a 'legal' fraud that a business group can be treated as a individual person. - Nothing in the 14th supports that fiction.
We probably agree on that. Here's another: anchor babies.
Are illegal babies -- "subject to the jurisdiction thereof"? -- I'd say not, -- if Congress properly enforces "the article by appropriate legislation".
Anybody inside the country is subject to the jurisdiction thereof. They may not have full citizenship rights, but they have some constitutional protection. The Fourteenth Amendment was a major revision of the structure of the state and enhanced the federalness following the Civil War and which enhancement continues to this day. One of the writers of the Fourteenth Amendment said it allowed for the corporation interpretation and said it was specifically discussed although there is nothing to that effect in the minutes.
Not really; - it simply reiterated that the US Constitution was our supreme law, -- "notwithstanding" anything in a State Constitution. [Art. VI]
some startling and not at all obvious from the actual words.
Examples?
Anchor babies. - Anybody inside the country is subject to the jurisdiction thereof. They may not have full citizenship rights, but they have some constitutional protection.
'Protection' is not the issue. Congress could make 'appropriate legislation' to regulate citizenship of illegal alien babies.
The Fourteenth Amendment was a major revision of the structure of the state and enhanced the federalness following the Civil War and which enhancement continues to this day.
No, it did not 'revise or restructure' State powers. -- They have always been limited by provisions within the US Constitution. Some state powers were prohibited. [see the 10th]
One of the writers of the Fourteenth Amendment said it allowed for the corporation interpretation and said it was specifically discussed although there is nothing to that effect in the minutes.
Politicians say the damnedest things...
The ninth doesn't protect anything unenumerated, it is just a reminder that Section 2 under the Articles of Confederation is still recognized and in force. Anything unenumerated is automatically dealt with through the tenth.
The current state of the state will continue to be incomprehensible.
That's the truth! :-)
I have to ask out of idle curiosity...did anyone else have that moment when you smacked yourself on the head and went:
OH! That's what it means!
LOL! I know I did.
Yes, really.
"Every Person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons."
Senator Jacob Howard, co-author of the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment, 1866.
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/llcg073.db&recNum=11%20
Notice how he says "by virtue of natural law"? The arrogance! Natural law is the law of nature and unaffected by the legislation of man.
-----
The 14th Amendment created a new class of citizenship under the auspices of the federal government. It also changed the Founders original 'Citizen of the United States' from being a civil Citizen of a State to meaning a statutory Citizen of the federal government.
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. 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"
______________________________________________________________________
Gardina v. Board of Registrars of Jefferson County, 160 Ala. 155; 48 So. 788 (1909)
"There are, then, under our republican form of government, two classes of citizens, one of the United States and one of the state".
The Fourteenth Amendment didn't so much reverse the intent of the Constitution as give the Federalists much of their agenda due to prevailing in the Civil War.
Good point.
However the original intent of civil citizens vs that of federal citizens was quite clear.
Citizens of the United States were those born in the federal enclave, every one else was a Citizen of their respective State.
This is why, today, we no longer have 'rights' but privileges dictated by government.
The only civil citizens are politicians and the only natural persons are illegals.
US Citizens are what were referred to in Rome as Latins:
Among the Romans, the libertini, or freedmen, were formerly distinguished by a threefold division.‡
They, sometimes obtained what was called the greater liberty, thereby becoming Roman citizens. To this privilege, those who were enfranchised by testament, by the census, or by the vindicta, appear to have been alone admitted:
sometimes they obtained the lesser liberty only, and became Latins; whose condition is thus described by Justinian: "They never enjoyed the right of succession [to estates] .... For although they led the lives of free men, yet, with their last breath they lost both their lives and liberties; for their possessions, like the goods of slaves, were detained by the manumittor.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the statement "like the goods of slaves, were detained by the manumittor." sound an awful lot like probate?
It gets complicated. One of the great advances of the city was when they recognized private property, and in particular the right to pass ownership to the next generation within a family--the right of inheritance. The Kelo decision seems to have been a recognition that the personhood of the corporation is superior to the personhood of a citizen, although the rank of the citizen may have a bearing on this, which might prove interesting if a city attempts to displace an anchor baby so a shopping mall might be built.
--- the original intent of civil citizens vs that of federal citizens was quite clear.
Citizens of the United States were those born in the federal enclave, every one else was a Citizen of their respective State.
You've written another unsupported opinion, which cannot be sourced within the Constitution.
In 1787, much of US territory was not under any States control. Most people born within those territories were "Citizens of the United States", not of a " federal enclave".
Can you provide an actual constitutional source for your idea that there were a "new class" of US Citizens [other than ex-slaves] created by the 14th amendment? -- You claimed:
"-- The 14th Amendment created a new class of citizenship under the auspices of the federal government. It also changed the Founders original 'Citizen of the United States' from being a civil Citizen of a State to meaning a statutory Citizen of the federal government. --"
What, in your view, was the citizenship status of settlers born in US Territories prior to ratification of the 14th?
For instance, was there a difference in citizenship status of a child born in Colorado in 1867 vs 1869?
It is amazing the number who want activist judges as long as those judges agree with them. Well not really amazing but ironic. Especially after they denounce so many judges as activist because they don't agree with them.
Appologies for being the bearer of nits. Actually, I clicked on the thread due to the title miscue since, as you doubtless know, some of the founders did have concerns about enumerating rights.
Regards,
Database
Mr. Blonde wrote:
It is amazing the number who want activist judges as long as those judges agree with them. Well, not really amazing but ironic.
Truly ironic, when you consider that Justice Harlan, who wrote the above, - is reviled by many conservatives as an 'activist'.
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.