|
Real0ne -> RE: 14th Amendment was NEVER PASSED! Conspiracy THEORY or matter of fact? (3/15/2011 10:06:49 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: DarkSteven
quote:
ORIGINAL: Real0ne
quote:
ORIGINAL: jlf1961
Look, the 14th amendment was passed, ratified, and put into the Constitution, and it just more of Realone's pathetic bullshit attempt to waste space on the board. It boggles the mind that someone can be that stupid or that ignorant.
And Pahunk's attempt at support lends no credibility to the statements made. Both of them are morons.
BUT BUT BUT JLF WHAT ABOUT THE HOUSE RECORDS?
Does this make it conspiracy?
I mean 1967 n all?
discussing it and never saying a word to you about it?
Are you like that insignificant they didnt bother to let you know?
I mean dont they at least have to submit it to the prazze' dante'?
Is that just a theory man?
or is is a real conspiracy?
The House records you have produced clearly show that there was disagreement 160 years ago, prior to the Civil War. While I am not a historian, I would conjecture that perhaps something happened in the 160 years since then.
FFS, this is like someone showing patent applications from then to prove that cars, computers, and televisions do not exist.
hmm....
I dont think that is a very good analogy.
The second group of congressional records that I posted are from 1967 and if you read the footers you can see they cite the journals of the states that were denied suffrage.
What you see here is corruption at the very highest levels.
The 14th is an enfranchisement tool used against the blacks and newcomers to the country that assigns a lower political "status" to them.
In essence the roots of "commercialized humans".
we see it all around us every day but unless and until we look at the roots of these words we come to accept the "common language" of the time such as "human resources", which is a tribute to people as citizens as a commodity and a commodity can be hypothecated, monetized and securitized which is exactly what they did.
Commodities as "things" have only "title" and are subject to ownership by proxy of "color" both local and internationally and as prize under admirality. (I wont get into all the de-humanizing legalese effects with that regard)
Those latter doc are from 1967 and congress saw fit to discuss it on the floor and the results are that the war was supposed to show the undesoluable union meaning that the states never were "out of the union" yet at the same time they were denied suffrage in congress.
The amendment allegedly passed by forcing out the people (states) who would vote against it and then they had to even go further by manipulating the methods of counting, and yet further by "PRESUMING" authority they never had as shown here and as JLF pointed out took the law which was really a decision for the courts, congress assembled or the people through referendum and he alone made legal determinations not within his authority:
quote:
Congress was not satisfied with the proclamation as issued and on the next day passed a concurrent resolution wherein it was resolved "That said fourteenth article is hereby declared to be a part of the Constitution of the United States, and it shall be duly promulgated as such by the Secretary of State." Thereupon, William H. Seward, the Secretary of State, after setting forth the concurrent resolution of both houses of Congress, then certified that the amendment "has become valid to all intents and purposes as a part of the Constitution of the United States."
The Supreme Court of the United States is the ultimate authority on the meaning of the Constitution (NOT SEWARD!) and has never hesitated in a proper case to declare an act of Congress unconstitutional - except when the act purported to amend the Constitution. (YEP stacked deck! no way that can be a conspiracy!)
The duty of the Secretary of State was ministerial, to wit, to count and determine when three fourths of the states had ratified the proposed amendment. He could not determine that a state once having rejected a proposed amendment could thereafter approve it, nor could he determine that a state once having ratified that proposal could thereafter reject it. The court and not Congress should determine such matters. Consistency would seem to require that a vote once cast would be final or would not be final, whether the first vote was for ratification or rejection.
In order to have 27 states ratify the Fourteenth Amendment, it was necessary to count those states which had first rejected and then under the duress of military occupation had ratified, and then also to count those states which initially ratified but subsequently rejected the proposal.
To leave such dishonest counting to a fractional part of Congress is dangerous in the extreme. What is to prevent any political party having control of both houses of Congress from refusing to seat the opposition and then without more passing a joint resolution to the effect that the Constitution is amended and that it is the duty of the Administrator of the General Services Administration to proclaim the adoption? Would the Supreme Court of the United States still say the problem was political and refuse to determine whether constitutional standards had been met?
How can it be conceived in the minds of anyone that a combination of powerful states can by force of arms deny another state a right to have representation in Congress until it has ratified an amendment which its people oppose? The Fourteenth Amendment was adopted by means almost as bad as that suggested above.Dyett v. Turner, 439 P. 2d 266 - Utah: Supreme Court 1968
This is patent, it was patently against the law of the land and patently against and in direct violation of the constitution! An act of treason against the government? No against the "People" the creators of the government.
With regard to what you said, that is why you hear patriots screaming "defacto" all the time.
What that means is that the "lawful" government of this country was overtaken by thugs who installed their own government over the top (just like america does with iraq, afghanastan etc), and essentially say this is the way things are going to be from now on.
That is what a defacto government is as opposed to the "de jure" or "by Law" government of the constitution.
Long story short it gives the courts and legislatures free reign to literally do whatever they want to do because they can act in the defacto and then hide in the dejure or vice versa as it suits them ..........get this::::::: while at the same time forcing you to remain in the defacto side as a second class citi-zen under the 14th where they have complete authority over you as a subject hence you have no remedy at law unless you beat the presumption in court and good luck with that!!
In the De-Jure side "YOU" have authority over them and the system operates as it is intended but only the highest on high know how to get there through the mine field they created to pull you into and keep you UNDER their jurisdiction and UNDER their control where you cannot exercise the "full extent" your rights!!
So yes in effect it proves this is what we have today but the real message is that what we have today is a constitution that through the reconstruction was burned a long time ago and we are being forced to live in the defacto, (the government that "IS" not the government that is "SUPPOSED TO BE" according to the organic law of the constitution.)
This is why we have the constant encroachment and attack on rights and everyone is falling prey to "mob rule" defacto democracy.
The fix, or the remedy has essentially been stolen from us by "constructive fraud".
That is what I read from those 1967 congressional records. and they know about it and have not corrected it, therefore all of congress are party to treason.
The damage that the 14th has done (and continues to do) with its commercialization of anyone who would be classified as a "citi-zen" under the guise of equal protection which the people at large and the "citi-zens" already had through due process of the first 10 amendments is unsurmountable.
It served to create a subculture of lower status "citi-zens" that can easily be raped and pillaged of property and so called freedoms.
so the underlying issue is and always will be:::::: is it important to have legislatures that abide by the law or not?
If not which is what we have now then what value is making an arrangement and agreement to self govern? Really what good is any of it if those who are granted authority take over like the mafia?
|
|
|
|
