Proposed Change to the 14th Amendment

Amendment XIV Section 1. 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 they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Justice Thomas has foreseen a potential change to Section 1 of the 14th Amendment’s “naturalization clause”, and while he is okay with this change, he absolutely does not want any change to the “privileges or immunities clause” right next door.

Why? Because the poi clause effectively says that “If the states abuse their citizens, the federal government can intervene to stop that”. This clause was created because right after the Civil War, the states decided to use state law to oppress the freed slaves.

Justice Thomas did a brilliant job to protect it, I might add, by chaining the poi clause to the 2nd Amendment. In a magnificent, 100 page concurring opinion to the McDonald v. Chicago gun control case, he pointed out that many gun control laws were created to keep freed slaves from arming themselves for self defense.

So, in effect, the poi clause is an enabling act for the 2nd Amendment, to stop states from snatching guns.

His decision was so powerful that it will be a major part of gun law for a century.

All the difference a clause makes.

As well as this part.

“are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.”

It provides difinitive proof that there are 2 different kinds of citizens:

In the first sense, the term “United States*” can refer to the nation, or the American empire, as Justice Marshall called it. The “United States*” is one member of the United Nations. When you are traveling overseas, you would go to the U.S.* embassy for help with passports and the like. In this instance, you would come under the jurisdiction of the President, through his agents in the U.S.* State Department, where “U.S.*” refers to the sovereign nation. The Informer summarizes Citizenship in this “United States*” as follows:

1. I am a Citizen of the United States* like you are a Citizen of China. Here you have defined yourself as a National from a Nation with regard to another Nation. It is perfectly OK to call yourself a “Citizen of the United States*.” This is what everybody thinks the tax statutes are inferring. But notice the capital “C” in Citizen and where it is placed. Please go back to basic English.

Secondly, the term “United States**” can also refer to “the federal zone”, which is a separate nation-state over which the Congress has exclusive legislative jurisdiction. (See Appendix Y for a brief history describing how this second meaning evolved.) In this sense, the term “United States**” is a singular phrase. It would be proper, for example, to say, “The United States** is ...” or “Its jurisdiction is ...” and so on. The Informer describes citizenship in this United States** as follows:

2. I am a United States** citizen. Here you have defined yourself as a person residing in the District of Columbia, one of its Territories, or Federal enclaves (area within a Union State) or living abroad, which could be in one of the States of the Union or a foreign country. Therefore you are possessed by the entity United States** (Congress) because citizen is small case. Again go back to basic english [sic]. This is the “United States**” the tax statutes are referring to. Unless stated otherwise, such as 26 USC 6103(b)(5).

Thirdly, the term “United States***” can refer to the 50 sovereign States which are united by and under the Constitution for the United States of America. In this third sense, the term “United States***” does not include the federal zone, because the Congress does not have exclusive legislative authority over any of the 50 sovereign States of the Union. In this sense, the term “United States***” is a plural, collective term. It would be proper therefore to say, “These United States***” or “The United States*** are ...” and so on. The Informer completes the trio by describing Citizenship in these “United States***” as follows:

3. I am a Citizen of these United States***. Here you have defined yourself as a Citizen of all the 50 States united by and under the Constitution. You are not possessed by the Congress (United States**). In this way you have a national domicile, not a State or United States** domicile and are not subject to any instrumentality or subdivision of corporate governmental entities.

No, it should read:

Amendment XIV Section 1. All persons born of TWO United States citizens or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws unless the Federal Government denies the citizens of one state the same protections given to the other 49 states.

FYI to ALL ... Sometimes my posts are tongue in cheek and this is one. I am as disgusted with Holder, 0bama and Napalitano’s childish, even criminal behavior as anyone else is.

I called Devin Nunes’s office today to bitch about the discriminatory practice of Napalitano/0bama treating the citizens of Arizona differently from the citizens of the other 49 states by removing Arizona's 287G agreement. I asked him to consider impeachment for not providing equal treatment of the “Citizens of the United States”.

I also asked his Congressional aide to ask him to quit Playing around with Holder and this “Contempt of Congress Crap” and just charge that S.O.B. with criminal offenses on the following grounds:

1.) International Law was broken shipping firearms into a country where firearm ownership is prohibited except for police and military and may also violate United Nation agreements.

2.) A reported 2,000 firearms traveled across state lines for sale and violated Interstate Commerce Law.

3.) Firearms shipments need government approval and an export license.

4.) Not one “Yellow Sheet” was created for any of 2,000 guns which violated federal law and the Gun Control Act of 1968.

5.) Not one federal “Insta-Check or background check was done. That's 2,000 MORE individual counts of law breaking

6.) Failure to keep records of firearms ownership.

7.) No 3 Day waiting period was observed.

8.) Aiding a criminal enterprise obtain illegal weapons.

9.) Criminal conspiracy.

Probably more crimes if you and I had committed, would be indicted, tried, convicted and sentenced for in a federal pen for doing.

Call your congressman YES but chew their ear a bit. After all, when the government and criminals won't obey the law, why should anyone else.

Contempt of Congress hell. Charge them with any or all of the above and frog hop them into a criminal court.

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.