The "Doctrine Of Standing" - What A Crock !!!

Prior to the creation of the Doctrine of Standing, all persons had a right to pursue a private prosecution of a public right. The doctrine began its existence in the 1920’s with either Frothingham v. Mellon, 262 U.S. 447 (1923), or Fairchild v. Hughes, (1922) – depending on how you look at it.

It has become a convenient way for the courts to avoid making decisions on controversial cases.

Case in point, today’s [non] decision in Hollingsworth v. Perry. The majority opinion stated the following and used it in its reasoning to deny the petitioners standing:

”(2) Petitioners contend the California Supreme Court’s determination that they were authorized under California law to assert the State’s interest in the validity of Proposition 8 means that they “need no more show a personal injury, separate from the State’s indisputa¬ble interest in the validity of its law, than would California’s Attor¬ney General or did the legislative leaders held to have standing in Karcher v. May, 484 U. S. 72 (1987).” Reply Brief 6. But far from supporting petitioners’ standing, Karcher is compelling precedent against it. In that case, after the New Jersey attorney general re¬fused to defend the constitutionality of a state law, leaders of New Jersey’s Legislature were permitted to appear, in their official capaci¬ties, in the District Court and Court of Appeals to defend the law. What is significant about Karcher, however, is what happened after the Court of Appeals decision. The legislators lost their leadership positions, but nevertheless sought to appeal to this Court. The Court held that they could not do so. Although they could participate in the lawsuit in their official capacities as presiding officers of the legisla¬ture, as soon as they lost that capacity, they lost standing. Id., at 81. Petitioners here hold no office and have always participated in this litigation solely as private parties.”

In Karcher, SCOTUS recognized the fact that state court’s can certify other parties to join in a cause of action when state officials decline to appeal. However, SCOTUS ruled [in Karcher] that the other parties had been certified to join the cause of action as leadership officials of the NJ state legislature. When they lost and attempted to appeal, they were denied standing by SCOTUS – since they had lost their leadership positions in the interim.

In Perry v. Brown [precursor to today’s decision], the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals certified a question to the CA Supreme Court as to whether other parties could join the cause of action.

FYI: When a certified question is made by a U.S. federal court, when confronted with real cases or controversies in which the federal court's decision will turn in part on a question of state law, it will ask the highest court of the relevant state to give an authoritative answer to the state-law question, which the federal court will then apply to its resolution of the federal case.

The CA State Supreme Court replied to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in the affirmative. Hollingsworth was then certified as an Official Proponent of Proposition 8 in Perry v. Brown, did have standing, and could join the cause of action. When the case was lost, Hollingsworth appealed to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals for an en banc hearing – but was refused. This set the stage for the appeal to SCOTUS.

In today’s ruling, SCOTUS rejected the CA State Supreme Court’s determination that Hollingsworth had standing. I do not think that this is something that it can legally [and morally] do. Unlike the determination in Karcher, Hollingsworth’s status [as determined by the CA State Supreme Court] HAD NOT changed. HOWEVER, invalidating the CA State Supreme Court's certification of the question was the ONLY way that SCOTUS could weasely justify its decision.

Prior to 1920?

One has to wonder what changed.

“Subject to the Jurisdiction”

Who is ‘SUBJECTED’ and to what ‘JURISDICTION’?

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 where in they reside...”

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 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 obfuscatory.

Please note that when the explanatory words (”, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, “), are omitted, the entire impact and meaning changes, or rather (and more correctly), the true meaning become obfuscated. The explanatory clause, (”, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, “), clearly adds a second criteria necessary to establishing citizenship and clearly indicates that there are two distinctly separate criteria both of which must be met in order for
persons born in the United States to be classified or designated as citizens thereof.

The words, “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, “ clearly provide, recognize and acknowledge that there are persons born in the United States who are not thereby automatically subject to the jurisdiction thereof, and that such persons, by such birth, are not automatically classified or designated to be citizens of the United States.

(I strongly contend that this includes all persons born in the United States of parents when the parents themselves are citizens of the United States. That is, no one becomes a citizen of the United States just because the person is born in the United States. “Born in the United States” and “born under the jurisdiction thereof” are not one and the same as is commonly misunderstood. If the two statements meant the same thing then only one would have been needed. Moreover, the Thirteenth Amendment’s prohibition of involuntary servitude prevents anyone from being designated to be a citizen of the United States based merely on the location of the person’s birth in the United States).

In regard to persons born in the United States there are two criteria which must be met and complied with in order for persons born in the United States to be designated as citizens of the United States, and the second of the two preclude such citizenship from being “automatic” or based on the mere “accident” (or contrivance, as in the case of so called “anchor babies”), of the persons birth in the United States. The two required criteria are (1), that the persons be born in the United States (obvious), and, (2) that the born in the United States must also be subject to the jurisdiction thereof (this criteria is universally, incorrectly and
erroneously presumed - read on:).

This second criteria is not and cannot be met merely by the location of the persons birth, because, as set forth in the Fourth Article of Fourteenth Amendment, there is a requirement that citizens of the United States not question the validity of the national debt. This mandated provision clearly constitutes a condition of servitude, therefore, in deference to and in recognition of the prohibition of involuntary servitude of the Thirteenth Amendment, it becomes abundantly clear that a person’s birth in the United States, by itself, does NOT and cannot establish U.S. citizenship. Please read on:

An examination of the two subject amendments will expose a diabolical plot; understand that the same legislators who wrote the Fourteenth Amendment had, two years earlier, also written the Thirteenth Amendment, wherein these same legislators prohibited involuntary servitude - I am not aware of any claim by anyone or any court that the Fourteenth Amendment in any way revoked or abolished any of the provisions of the Thirteenth Amendment.

Bearing in mind that the Thirteenth Amendment prohibits involuntary servitude; and while keeping this thought in mind, then consider this wording contained in the Fourth Article of the Fourteenth Amendment, (in reference to citizens of the United States):

“The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.”,

Or, to paraphrase the relevant part, “Citizens of the United States shall not complain about being required to pay the public debt of the United States, authorized by law...”.

Or, to cut to the chase, “Citizens of the United States - SHUT UP and PAY UP!!”

As paraphrased (but NOT wrongly interpreted), it becomes abundantly clear and indisputable that this mandate in the Fourth Article of the Fourteenth Amendment constitutes a condition of servitude - that is, U.S. citizenship constitutes a condition of servitude - and, because of the prohibition of involuntary servitude in the Thirteenth Amendment, US citizenship must be voluntarily entered into and cannot be acquired merely by birth.

So, with the foregoing examination and understanding in mind, it then becomes clear why the citizenship clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment are phrased in the manner they are (implying U.S. citizenship by birth but clearly unable to state such to be the case). If those legislators who created the wording of these two amendments had been honest, they would have written the Fourteenth Amendment somewhat as follows:

“All persons born in the United States, who thereafter, upon attaining the age of reason, then voluntarily elect to place themselves under the jurisdiction thereof, such persons, by such voluntary act, thereby voluntarily become citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside and in so volunteering, such citizens agree to subject themselves to the jurisdiction of the United States in every respect and agree to pay the national debt thereof, without complaint.”

The opening clause of the Fourteenth Amendment provides, “All persons born or naturalized, “. Bear in mind that those who were held in slavery had been kidnapped in their homeland and drug to the United States against their will, in chains, and then forced into slavery for many generations. Such acts as these, perpetrated on these innocent kidnapped Africans, could not in any way be expected to engender an attitude of gratitude and loyalty to the Government of the United States - what would be your attitude if you were among those who were freed at the end of Lincoln’s unconstitutional and undeclared war (just in case you thought Bush was the first to ignore the applicable Constitutional provisions)??

Due to the conditions the African slaves had been subjected to preceding their emancipation, the former slaves had every reason to despise the United States. Additionally, naturalization (also included in the citizenship clause of the Fourteenth Amendment), requires a renunciation of the candidates former foreign sovereign and a willingness to take an oath swearing an allegiance to the United States. Naturalization requires a study of and a knowledge of the Constitution. The vast majority of the former slaves were totally illiterate, so, for the most part, none of them were in any way desirable as candidates for naturalization and it would have been ludicrous to expect that any of them would seek naturalization, and I am not aware of even one instance where such occurred. And none of this has even the slightest bearing on the fact that the former slaves were black.

In response to the foregoing there are those who claim that the former slaves gained U.S. citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment because, during the so called reconstruction period, imposed upon the Southern States after the end of Lincoln’s illegal war, the former slaves were then under the jurisdiction of the United States and that is what made them U.S. citizens. This claim is spurious at best as the purported applicable clause of the Fourteenth Amendment addressing “those persons subject to the jurisdiction thereof [of the United States]”, is specifically limited to and is only applicable to those persons BORN in the United States - and is not applicable those who found themselves under the jurisdiction thereof due to the result of an unconstitutional and illegal war. (All of the adult former slaves had been born (albeit - as a result of kidnapping), under the jurisdiction of the (southern) state wherein they were born. Some may have even been born in a foreign country where from they were kidnapped).

As to those babies actually born of freed slaves during the so called reconstruction period, such children could still not be classified as citizens of the United States (due to their birth) because of the servitude mandated in the Fourth Article of the Fourteenth Amendment as a specific condition of U.S. citizenship; all this in deference to the prohibition of involuntary servitude of the Thirteenth Amendment. Before such children could become U.S. citizens they would have to wait until they reached the age of reason and then they would have to volunteer themselves into such status. I contend that none ever did so, certainly not knowingly.

I cannot imagine that any sane former slave who fully understood the provisions of the Thirteenth and Fourteenth amendments would freely volunteer into a condition of servitude which is part and parcel of United States citizenship. For that matter, neither can I imagine such would be the freewill choice of any sane white person born in the United States (this disparagement is not in any way applicable to foreign nationals who immigrate to the U.S. and apply for naturalization).

Having unraveled the insidious intent hidden in the Fourteenth Amendment it becomes abundantly clear that the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was/is to con persons of all races into volunteering themselves into a condition of servitude under the jurisdiction of the United States

There is widespread belief that the purpose and intent of the Fourteenth Amendment was to provide a citizenship status for the freed slaves and at the time of the promulgation of the Fourteenth Amendment such purpose was even publicly claimed by those who drafted the citizenship clauses - but if such was the case then why is any suggestion or implication thereof totally absent from the said clauses?? Why did the framers thereof not write:

“All persons born in the United States or any territory thereof, or born in any of the several states, being of African extraction, who desire to become citizens hereof, shall be accorded every opportunity to meet and comply with the rules of naturalization on the same basis of any white immigrant, without any restriction due to their former condition of involuntary servitude or slavery, nor shall such applicants be subject to any naturalization quotas.”

And, just to make sure that it is clearly understood, there is no such thing as an “anchor baby” (babies born in the United States of illegal alien mothers).

So, if persons born in the United States do not volunteer into U.S. citizen servitude status - what then is their political status??

Well, as for me, I am of the Posterity of the People of the United States. “People of the United States” and “citizen of the United States” are not in any way the same!!! This begs an examination as to what it is that constitutes a republican form of government - and that will be the subject of a future discussion.

I suggest skeptics read Chief Justice John Jay’s dicta in Chisholm vs. Georgia (2US 419 - 1794), the Preamble to the Constitution, and the First and Second amendments, paying particular attention to the use of the words “joint tenants in the sovereignty”, “people”, “ourselves and our posterity”, and, the absence of the word “citizen”

Cheers,

Eric Williams

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.