Skip to comments.ObamaCare and using the 14th Amendment as Toilet Paper
Posted on 11/12/2012 8:57:31 AM PST by NKP_Vet
Among the objections to ObamaCare, one that has not gotten as much attention as it should is the president's power to waive the law for any company, union or other enterprise he chooses.
The 14th Amendment to the Constitution provides for "equal protection of the laws" for all Americans. To have a law that can cost an organization millions of dollars a year either apply or not apply, depending on the whim or political interest of the President of the United States, is to make a mockery of the rule of law.
How secure is any freedom when there is this kind of arbitrary power in the hands of one man?
What does your right of freedom of speech mean if saying something that irritates the Obama administration means that you or your business has to pay huge amounts of money and get hit with all sorts of red tape under ObamaCare that your competitor is exempted from, because your competitor either kept quiet or praised the Obama administration or donated to its reelection campaign?
(Excerpt) Read more at patriotpost.us ...
Face it gang. We are a nation of Men rather than Laws.
The Law is what the president says it is.
No other authority than the President is recognized.
The Republic is dead.
RIP America. It was a good run, but all good things must come to an end.
...and if you don't like it, Obama now has the power to drop a Predator Drone on your head. No charges, no trial, no review. No wonder he looks so damn smug.
The Fourteenth Amendment - Revisited
First - forget everything you ever knew about the Fourteenth
Amendment - then carefully read the below expose:
Take the Amendment’s opening clauses, “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
Now, consider the same clauses with the central, explanatory clause
removed, and it then reads: “All persons born or naturalized in the
United States are citizens of the United States and of the state
wherein they reside...”
Under the rules of English grammar and punctuation, the second
clause, “and under the jurisdiction thereof, “ is an explanatory
clause. Explanatory clauses do not add to nor in any way change or
alter the meaning of the writing in which they are included; their
purpose is to explain. As it is self evident that naturalized
persons volunteer into the jurisdiction of the United States as an
inherent aspect of their voluntary naturalization, the explanatory
clause obviously was not relevant thereto. Therefore the inclusion
of this explanatory clause is to clarify that persons born in the
United States, in deference to the Thirteenth Amendment, do not
become and are not, at the moment of their birth in the United
States, automatically citizens thereof because such newborn persons
are incapable of personally volunteering themselves into servitude.
I contend that the inclusion of “persons naturalized” was somewhat
Full story here:
By the way, FU John Roberts (judicial accomplice).
Clue: The Uhited States here means the federal United States, a corporation.
The 14th doesn't (can't) grant rights, only privliges and immunities.
Simply put, the 14th only applies to federal citizens, those who do not have rights.
Two classes of 'citizens', folks.
You can, as a free-born Citizen with rights, contract with the federal government for benefits and lose osme of your rights.
It's been the fed's goal to extinguish the population of Citizens by trickery and deceit, turning all citizens and Citizens into subjects of the federal gummint.
Sooprize! It's winning.
Yes, the world's great experiment in self government is over.
It’s just because “some are more equal than others.”