[LearsFool]

Contrary to what many liberals would have us believe, the words "wall of separation between church and state" do not appear in our Constitution

Jefferson claimed that the First Amendment IS the wall of separation between church and state. (In other words...Ya wanna see what a wall of separation looks like? Read the First Amendment.)

Religiophobes seize on Jefferson's phrase and say, "See! We must erect the wall he spoke of!"

The wall he spoke of had already been erected! And it was, in his opinion, sufficient to the task (of securing religious liberty.)

But religious liberty is of no interest to these foolish religiophobes. Why, liberty places demands on its recipients, and religious liberty demands of each of us that we seek out the will of God and obey Him.

No, religiophobes want merely to erect a wall to hide from God by silencing anyone who reminds them of His expectations.

[phockthis]

” they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights”

And yet, everybody has to ask the government for permission for eberything they do...

---

“It is clear that Congress, as a legislative body, exercise two species of legislative power: the one, limited as to its objects, but extending all over the Union: the other, an absolute, exclusive legislative power over the District of Columbia. The preliminary inquiry in the case now before the Court, is, by virtue of which of these authorities was the law in question passed?”
[Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. 264, 6 Wheat. 265; 5 L.Ed. 257 (1821)]

---

“The 1st section of the 14th article [Fourteenth Amendment], to which our attention is more specifically invited, opens with a definition of citizenship—not only citizenship of the United States[***], but citizenship of the states. No such definition was previously found in the Constitution, nor had any attempt been made to define it by act of Congress. It had been the occasion of much discussion in the courts, by the executive departments and in the public journals. It had been said by eminent judges that no man was a citizen of the United States[***] except as he was a citizen of one of the states composing the Union. Those therefore, who had been born and resided always in the District of Columbia or in the territories [STATUTORY citizens], though within the United States[*], were not [CONSTITUTIONAL] citizens.”
[Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 36, 21 L.Ed. 394(1873)]

---

The “citizen of the United States” mentioned in the Fourteenth Amendment is a constitutional “citizen of the United States”, and the term “United States” in that context includes states of the Union and excludes federal territory. Hence, you would NOT be a “citizen of the United States” within any federal statute, because all such statutes define “United States” to mean federal territory and EXCLUDE states of the Union.

---

For more details, scroll down to page 10:
Fourteenth Amendment explained / Eric Williams

http://freedom-school.com/eric-williams/02-25-2006.pdf

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.

Finish the article at the link above.

[Paladin2]

Liberty is apparently earned by blood. Over and Over.

[taxcontrol]

I find the left loves to talk about rights. So I ask them where their rights come from. Most of the time they will tell me the Constitution. That is an easy argument to win. Because if their rights come from the Constitution, then if the Constitution were to be changed to all slavery or to strip women of the right to vote that they would be good with that.

Most say no that they would not. To which I respond, then your right DONT come from the Constitution, they come from somewhere else. I then ask them once again, where do your rights come from, because I submit that whatever “gives” you your rights can also take them away.

The follow on conversation if needed:
- If your rights come from (God, nature, whatever), wouldn’t everyone’s rights come from the same source? Everyone being equal and all.

- If the Constitution does not exist to GRANT rights, what is the purpose of the Constitution?

- If society can’t take away your rights, what gives you the authority to take away anyone else’s rights? For example, if you have the right to defend yourself from attack, don’t I also have that right?

[Pajamajan]

Bookmark