|
Part 6 in a series - by Publius II
We come now to the next link in our effort to understand the
difference between these two entities (US vs. USA) and how it has come to
affect us and our Natural Rights.
First, and
generally speaking, it should be remembered that the War for Southern Independence was extremely
devastating to America. Over five-hundred thousand deaths had occurred. In
particular, the South was struck worst of all and was all but destroyed of its
infrastructure and way of life.
The People had become
lost and barely able to sustain themselves. With that and the subsequent
"reconstruction" period they were forced into, the government instituted
several things, which today could easily be construed as unconstitutional acts.
For example, the South was forbidden to participate in government functions and
thus had no representation during this period. Included in these acts of an
incomplete representative government was the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment. You should remember in Part 3 it was stated that then President Andrew Johnson was opposed to the Fourteenth Amendment and was threatened with
conviction of his impeachment unless he capitulated. Now
you're about to see why he opposed it and why they were so willing to go to
whatever lengths to pass it.
Remember too,
that President Lincoln had suspended the "Writ of Habeas Corpus" thus making
everyone subject to federal jurisdiction, not the Common Law. While the
Thirteenth Amendment freed the slaves it also freed everyone of "involuntary
servitude." Meaning, you can't be held to a contract in perpetuity (forever),
which implies there must be a termination date on contracts or at the very
least some way to terminate them voluntarily. This was a set up for
the Fourteenth Amendment and ultimately this coexisting system we have today.
Here is why:
Now that the
War was over and the South about to regain its seats in the Congress,
those in power at the time wanted to continue their control and jurisdiction
over the People. But Lincoln's suspension of the "Writ of Habeas Corpus" had to
be rescinded because the emergency was over. This meant that the People had
regained their Right to the Common Law. It shall soon become apparent why the
Fourteenth Amendment came to be.
You see, until
the passing of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868, shortly after the War
had ended, there had never been a legal status or formal distinction of any one
of the People being a citizen of the United States (Congress), since the States
are independent states, each in their own Rights, though subject to certain
conditions as defined within the Articles of Confederation. But, short of that, the People were, and still are, Citizens of the State in which they were born.
Nonetheless, in
an informal way, one might well have said, in a colloquial sense, they are
"Citizens of the several States" or "Citizens of the union
(of States)" or one might well have said, they were a "Citizen of the united
States" (note lower case "u"). In this instance the term "united" is an
adjective referring to the Union of the several States (USA), not
the Congress (US) (Indeed, this later form of expression is what most of us
think we are meaning when we say, "yes" to "are you a citizen of the United
States?"
Though in 1868,
with the [questionable] ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, there became,
for the first time, a legal status of being a "citizen of the United States"
(in Congress assembled - US). The following is the legally acceptable
definition of this amendment.
Black's Law Dictionary
(6th edition): "The Fourteenth Amendment
of the Constitution of the United States, ratified in 1868, creates or at
least recognizes for the first time a citizenship of the United States, as
distinct from that of the states; forbids the making or enforcement by
any state of any law abridging the privileges and immunities of
citizens of the United States; and secures all "persons"
against any state action which results in either deprivation of life, liberty,
or property without due process of law." [Boldface and Underlines added]
The first notable
point here is the phrase "for the first time". Again, before the
ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment (1868) there had never been a legal
national status of citizenship.
The next point to keep in mind is the phrase "at least
recognizes". This will become increasingly clear as we go along. For now,
let's just say, that if you claim it or declare it (whether it is true or not)
they will recognize it and accept it and claim
jurisdiction over you for doing it.
Then it says, "as
distinct from that of the states". Here, it actually admits there
are two separate and "distinct" citizens, one of the States (that's any one of
the several States of the Union - USA) and now, one of the United States (in
Congress assembled - US).
The consequence of this fact is that the
Fourteenth Amendment draws a "distinct" line of authority and jurisdiction
between these two entities, by forbidding any one of the [several] States
from enacting any law abridging the "privileges and
immunities" over
such "persons" [citizens of the United States] that would
deprive them of life, liberty or property.
So while the
states have NO legal jurisdiction over a "citizen of the United States," one must REMEMBER the United States never had direct jurisdiction over "Citizens of the
[several] States" via the Articles of Confederation, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
It is
tremendously significant that the word "persons" has been placed in
quotations in the above definition (they were not added here). It was done to signify
and to alert us to a legal distinction as to the proper use of the term. It is
also clear they used the term "person" in an effort to manipulate us into
thinking it is somehow synonymous with being a Natural Person, when they are really
referring to a legislative entity, which is an artificial entity, a non-living
thing, a corporation. Only the Nature of Man (the Creator) can create Living
Beings.
You will come to
notice how they use this term "person" at all levels of government,
in all of their so-called applications for their various programs, as well as
other documents, to insinuate a living being,
Black's Law Dictionary (6th edition) "Person. In general usage, a
human being (i.e. natural person), though by statute term may
include labor organizations, partnerships, associations, corporations, legal
representatives, trustees, trustees in bankruptcy, or receivers." [Underline
added]
It is important to remember that
the hierarchy of the fundamental Laws of Nature functions from the top down. So while Man is a creature of Nature (Natural Person), governments are creatures of Man and whatever the government creates is therefore not Natural, but
Artificial.
Now, you are probably thinking that the Fourteenth Amendment sounds redundant,
because you thought we already had these Rights of Life, Liberty, the pursuit of
Happiness as well as property as espoused within the Declaration of
Independence. So, if that were true then the Fourteenth Amendment would not have
been necessary. Except that it is not about Citizens of the
several States (USA), it is about this new, legislatively created, class of
"citizen," that of the United States (in Congress assembled - US)." Simply, it
is an effort to appear equivalent to the constitutionally guaranteed
Rights retained by the People via the Declaration of Independence, the AOC, the
Constitution and the Bill of Rights, when in fact they are "distinctly"
different and separate from each other.
Therefore, a
"citizen of the United States" has no Constitutionally guaranteed Rights, as do
Citizens of the several States. They only have those "immunities and
privileges" referred to in the Fourteenth Amendment.
If that weren't
enough, here's the straw that broke the camels back:
Fourteenth Amendment - Section 5: "The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate
legislation, the provision of this article." [Boldface and
underline added]
We should never forget, it is Congress (the United States) ONLY,
who has the power over anyone claiming to be a Fourteenth Amendment "citizen of the United States." Not the People, not the
Constitution, not the AOC, not even the Creator- just Congress (the United
States). What Congress creates, Congress can regulate!
Now, read for yourself
what the courts say with regards to the Fourteenth Amendment (Notice the date
1993):
"Privileges and immunities clause of
the Fourteenth Amendment protects only those rights peculiar to being citizen
of the federal government; it does not protect those rights, which relate
to state citizenship." [Jones v. Temmer, Federal Supplement, Vol.
829, Page 1227 (1993)] [Boldface and underline added]
So while it is
true, the Fourteenth Amendment doesn't protect the Rights of state citizens, the
Constitution and the Bill of Rights DO.
We should all remember this because it is everywhere
and it is the difference between your Natural Rights, Liberties and Freedoms given to us by the Creator and
guaranteed by the Constitution and those Legislative Privileges, under statute
law, into which we are being tricked and coerced.
Now you know "the rest of the story" and how it has
come to be that over the years, since 1868, we have all come to be "federal
citizens" again, without suspending the Constitution or any part of it.
it's an offer of "citizenship"
It is not a replacement or requirement
You can read the Fourteenth Amendment all day long and still
will not find where it states that it is a replacement for any other status of
citizenship. Neither will you find it saying that anyone is required to accept
it. It simply creates it and then later, via certain government programs (i.e.
Social Security, BATF 4473, voter registration, etc.), offers it to you and if
you accept it, they in turn will "recognize" it and accept it as
well and then proceed to claim jurisdiction over YOU for having
agreed to it, in writing and under the penalty of perjury. Oh my God. What have
we done to ourselves? |
Forsaken Roots
Did you know that 52 of the 55 signers of the Declaration of Independence
were orthodox, deeply committed Christians? The other three all believed in
the Bible as the divine truth, the God of scripture, and His personal
intervention.
It is the same Congress that formed the American Bible Society. Immediately
after creating the Declaration of Independence, the Continental Congress
voted to purchase and import 20,000 copies of scripture for the people of
this nation.
Patrick Henry, who is called the firebrand of the American Revolution, is
still remembered for his words, "Give me liberty or give me death." But in
current textbooks the context of these words is deleted. Here is what he
said:
"An appeal to arms and the God of hosts is all that is left us. But we shall
not fight our battle alone. There is a just God that presides over the
destinies of nations. The battle sir, is not to the strong alone. Is life so
dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?
Forbid it almighty God. I know not what course others may take, but as for
me, give me liberty, or give me death."
These sentences have been erased from our textbooks. Was Patrick Henry a
Christian? The following year, 1776, he wrote this: "It cannot be emphasized
too strongly or too often that this great Nation was founded not by
religionists, but by Christians; not on religious, but on the Gospel of Jesus
Christ. For that reason alone, people of other faiths have been afforded
freedom of worship here."
Consider these words that Thomas Jefferson wrote on the front of his
well-worn Bible: "I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the
doctrines of Jesus. I have little doubt that our whole country will soon be
rallied to the unity of our Creator and, I hope, to the pure doctrine of
Jesus also."
Consider these words from George Washington, the Father of our Nation, in his
farewell speech on September 19, 1796: "It is impossible to govern the world
without God and the Bible. Of all the dispositions and habits that lead to
political prosperity, our religion and morality are the indispensable
supporters. Let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be
maintained without religion. Reason and experience both forbid us to expect
that our national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."
Was George Washington a Christian? Consider these words from his personal
prayer book: "Oh, eternal and everlasting God, direct my thoughts, words and
work. Wash away my sins in the immaculate blood of the lamb and purge my
heart by thy Holy Spirit. Daily, frame me more and more in the likeness of
thy son, Jesus Christ, that living in thy fear, and dying in thy favor, I may
in thy appointed time obtain the resurrection of the justified unto eternal
life. Bless, O Lord, the whole race of mankind and let the world be filled
with the knowledge of thee and thy son, Jesus Christ."
Consider these words by John Adams, our second president, who also served as
chairman of the American Bible Society. In an address to military leaders he
said, "We have no government armed with the power capable of contending with
human passions, unbridled by morality and true religion. Our Constitution was
made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the
government of any other."
How about our first Supreme Court Justice, John Jay? He stated that when we
select our national leaders, if we are to preserve our Nation, we must select
Christians. "Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers,
and it is the duty as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian
Nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers."
John Quincy Adams, son of John Adams, was the sixth U.S. President. He was
also the chairman of the American Bible Society, which he considered his
highest and most important role. On July 4, 1821, President Adams said, "The
highest glory of the American Revolution was this: it connected in one
indissoluble bond the principles of civil government with the principles of
Christianity."
Calvin Coolidge, our 30th President of the United States reaffirmed this
truth when he wrote, "The foundations of our society and our government rest
so much on the teachings of the Bible that it would be difficult to support
them if faith in these teachings would cease to be practically universal in
our country."
In 1782, the United States Congress voted this resolution: "The Congress of
the United States recommends and approves the Holy Bible for use in all
schools."
William Holmes McGuffey is the author of the McGuffey Reader, which was used
for over 100 years in our public schools with over 125 million copies sold
until it was stopped in 1963.
Listen to these words of Mr. McGuffey: "The Christian religion is the
religion of our country. From it is derived our notions on the character of
God, on the great moral Governor of the universe. On its doctrines are
founded the peculiarities of our free institutions. From no source has the
author drawn more conspicuously than from the sacred Scriptures. From all
these extracts from the Bible I make no apology."
Of the first 108 universities founded in America, 106 were distinctly
Christian, including the first, Harvard University, chartered in 1636. In the
original Harvard Student Handbook, rule number 1 was that students seeking
entrance must know Latin and Greek so that they could study the scriptures:
"Let every student be plainly instructed and earnestly pressed to consider
well, the main end of his life and studies is, to know God and Jesus Christ,
which is eternal life, (John 17:3); and therefore to lay Jesus Christ as the
only foundation of all sound knowledge and learning. And seeing the Lord only
giveth wisdom, let every one seriously set himself by prayer in secret to
seek it of him (Proverbs 2:3)."
For over 100 years, more than 50% of all Harvard graduates were pastors!
It is clear from history that the Bible and the Christian faith, were
foundational to our educational and judicial system. However, in 1947, there
was a radical change of direction for the Supreme Court. It required ignoring
every precedent of Supreme Court ruling for the past 160 years. The Supreme
Court ruled in a limited way to affirm a wall of separation between church
and State in the public classroom.
In the coming years, this led to removing prayer from public schools in 1962.
Here is the prayer that was banished:
"Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence on Thee. We beg Thy blessings
upon us and our parents and our teachers and our country. Amen."
In 1963, the Supreme Court ruled that Bible reading was outlawed as
unconstitutional in the public school system. The court offered this
justification: "If portions of the New Testament were read without
explanation, they could and have been psychologically harmful to children."
Bible reading was now unconstitutional, though the Bible was quoted 94
percent of the time by those who wrote our Constitution and shaped our Nation
and its system of education and justice and government.
In 1965, the Courts denied as unconstitutional the right of a student in the
public school cafeteria to bow his head and pray audibly for his food. In
1980, Stone vs. Graham outlawed the Ten Commandments in our public schools.
The Supreme Court said this:
"If the posted copies of the Ten Commandments were to have any effect at all,
it would be to induce school children to read them. And if they read them,
mediated upon them, and perhaps venerated and obeyed them, this is not a
permissible objective."
Is it not a permissible objective to allow our children to follow the moral
principles of the Ten Commandments? James Madison, the primary author of the
Constitution of the United States, said this: "We have staked the whole
future of our new nation, not upon the power of government; far from it. We
have staked the future of all our political constitutions upon the capacity
of each of ourselves to govern ourselves according to the moral principles of
the Ten Commandments."
Today, we are asking God to bless America. But, how can He bless a Nation
that has departed so far from Him? Prior to September 11, 2001 He was not welcome
in America. Most of what you read in this article has been erased from our
textbooks. Revisionists have rewritten history to remove the truth about our
country's Christian roots.
Thanks to Michael Haley for the inspiration "Reverently let us invoke the God of our fathers to guide and protect us in our efforts to perpetuate the principles, which by His blessing they were able to vindicate, establish and transmit to their posterity. With the continuance of His favor ever gratefully acknowledged, we may hopefully look forward to success, to peace and to prosperity." President Jefferson Davis - February 1861 Look for more quizes in future issues of our newsletter to test your knowledge of American History. Let us hear from you We welcome your input. If there is a subject you are particularly interested in, please let us know. Email us at Letters From Our Readers We will feature your concerns in a future issue.
Get the facts they don't teach you in
school. Don't Miss this
Upcoming Movie
"Gods and Generals" An exciting and educational film
Opening in theaters February 21
A must see event for the entire family |
|
Deo Vindice Newsletteris published by the League of the
South, Northeast Florida Chapter as a public service to the citizens of
Florida's First Coast
|