SeekLiberty
Member
- Joined
- May 29, 2007
- Messages
- 4,534
Exactly. The tempestuous sea of the Liberty of opinion has its benefits! It brings out the Truth. 
- SL
Why Dr. Paul lost my support
- Thread starter mattman59
- Start date
Exactly. The tempestuous sea of the Liberty of opinion has its benefits! It brings out the Truth. - SL
WannaBfree
Member
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2007
- Messages
- 640
I dropped out of discussion here but did post earlier that this thread was likely posted by a
TROLL
(with reasons given). He probably just wanted a thread on this forum with the title he used. I didn't know how to flag it for removal, but maybe we shouldn't post on this anymore to let it drop down. Post on others threads to help bring this down faster.
TROLL
(with reasons given). He probably just wanted a thread on this forum with the title he used. I didn't know how to flag it for removal, but maybe we shouldn't post on this anymore to let it drop down. Post on others threads to help bring this down faster.
I meant that the Bill of Rights coupled with the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees to us the protection of rights by the government, not the rights themselves. Of course we all have certain unalienable rights (which is an essential part of the Christian faith), but the Bill of Rights outlines those and makes sure that the government protects them. I did not mean to say that it was the Bill of Rights itself which gives citizens their rights.
Also, remember that our rights are unalienable, and not inalienable, which is a good thing. If our rights were inalienable, by definition, it would be possible to surrender those rights. Unalienable rights, however, can never be sold, transferred, or surrendered.
I am not familiar with the argument that the Fourteenth Amendment was improperly ratified, but please enlighten me.
Prior to the Fourteenth Amendment, the Bill of Rights only applied to the Federal government. It was possible for the State and local governments to infringe upon those rights. The Fourteenth Amendment made us all citizens of the United States in addition to citizens of our respective States, which is important, because otherwise the States would be able to infringe upon the rights that the Federal Constitution protects.
torchbearer
Lizard King
- Joined
- May 26, 2007
- Messages
- 38,926
I don't think the sourthern states every really ratified it. If they did, it was a puppet, "carpet bagger", regime change, GOP controlled state governments.
Did you know there are still laws on the books that only apply to the "reconstruction states". meaning, the confederate states are still under tight federal rule. We resent the federal government for this treatment... and this is another good reason why Ron Paul will win the southern vote!
States Rights.
Government can make no law respecting religion. It cannot promote atheism or anything else, nor can it prevent people from exercising their religious preferences. And yes, even people in government are guaranteed they can exercise their religion without the law being able to stop them. Recent supreme court rulings are a complete perversion of this principle.
So, if you want religion completely out of government, I'd suggest you either find another country or try to pad the Supreme Court with more atheist activist judges.
SeekLiberty
Member
- Joined
- May 29, 2007
- Messages
- 4,534
You're absolutely RIGHT about UNalienable versus INalienable. Admittedly, I stand corrected on this. I actually really already knew this even! Even myself is still in the process of deprogramming so I'm completely UNwashed! Bad habits die hard sometimes.
(I've edited and made the correction and truly thank you for bringing up this important point.)It would be helpful too ... to provide a reference on the difference. Here's one:
http://www.gemworld.com/USA-Unalienable.htm
So I apologize to all for my UNthinkingly supporting "political ponerology" (which is a good book by the way.) People are more inculcated than they realize.
As to your quote here:
The Fourteenth Amendment made us all citizens of the United States in addition to citizens of our respective States, which is important, because otherwise the States would be able to infringe upon the rights that the Federal Constitution protects
The correct part you said is that the Fourteenth Amendment made us all U.S. ciitizens. However, it's NOT for the reasons you're saying.
The several States were ALREADY bound to uphold our UNalienable
)) Individual Rights BEFORE this Amendment by the very fact they ratified our Bill of Rights! lol. Otherwise, ratifying them would be meaningless! lol. They didn't ratify them for the federal territories, but for WE THE PEOPLE of the several States of the Union.You see how we've all been hoodwinked on this? This Amendment attempted to set the stage to make our Country into nationalist State which, of course, is entirely UNconstitutional.
Please read the content in the link I have posted in my previous post to you, and study it please. It may be too long to post it here unless I get it requested.
Here, I'll just provide the link here again ...
http://www.SweetLiberty.org/fourteenth.amend.htm
- SL
PS: I can admit when I'm wrong and I have (as above) and now you need to be able to do the same.
Last edited:
Actually, I did know this issue and had forgotten.
SeekLiberty
Member
- Joined
- May 29, 2007
- Messages
- 4,534
States protesting the 14th Amendment.
You're 100% correct!
The fact that twenty-three (23) Senators had been unlawfully excluded from the U.S. Senate, in order to secure a two-thirds vote for adoption of the Joint Resolution proposing the 14th Amendment is shown by Resolutions of protest adopted by the following state legislatures:
The New Jersey Legislature by Resolution of March 27, 1868, protested as follows:
The said proposed amendment not having yet received the assent of the three-fourths of the states, which is necessary to make it valid, the natural and constitutional right of this state to withdraw its assent is undeniable ***.
That it being necessary by the constitution that every amendment to the same should be proposed by two-thirds of both houses of congress, the authors of said proposition, for the purpose of securing the assent of the requisite majority, determined to, and did, exclude from the said two houses eighty representatives from eleven states of the Union, upon the pretense that there were no such states in the Union; but, finding that two-thirds of the remainder of the said houses could not be brought to assent to the said proposition, they deliberately formed and carried out the design of mutilating the integrity of the United States Senate, and without any pretext or justification, other than the possession of the power, without the right, and in palpable violation of the Constitution, ejected a member of their own body, representing this state, and thus practically denied to New Jersey its equal suffrage in the Senate, and thereby nominally secured the vote of two-thirds of the said houses. (New Jersey Acts, March 27, 1868)
The Alabama Legislature protested against being deprived of representation in the Senate of the U.S. Congress. (Alabama House Journal, 1866, pp. 210-213)
The Texas Legislature by Resolution on October 15, 1866, protested as follows:
The amendment to the Constitution proposed by this joint resolution as Article XIV is presented to the Legislature of Texas for its action thereon, under Article V of that Constitution. This Article V, providing the mode of making amendments to that instrument, contemplates the participation by all the States through their representatives in Congress, in proposing amendments. As representatives in Congress from nearly one-third of the States were excluded from the Congress proposing the amendments, the constitutional requirement was not complied with; it was violated in letter and in spirit; and the proposing of these amendments to States which were excluded from all participation in their initiation in Congress, is a nullity. (Texas House Journal, 1866, p. 577.)
The Arkansas Legislature, by Resolution on December 17, 1866, protested as follows:
The Constitution authorized two-thirds of both houses of Congress to propose amendments; and, as eleven States were excluded from deliberation and decision upon the one now submitted, the conclusion is inevitable that it is not proposed by legal authority, but in palpable violation of the Constitution. (Arkansas House Journal, 1866, p. 287.)
The Georgia Legislature, by Resolution on November 1866, protested as follows:
Since the reorganization of the State government, Georgia has elected Senators and Representatives. So has every other State. They have been arbitrarily refused admission to their seats, not on the ground that the qualifications of the members elected did not conform to the fourth paragraph, second section, first article of the Constitution, but because their right of representation was denied by a portion of the States having equal but not greater rights than themselves. They have in fact been forcibly excluded; and, inasmuch as all legislative power granted by the States to Congress is defined, and this power of exclusion is not among the powers expressly or by implication, the assemblage, at the capitol, of representatives from a portion of the States, to the exclusion of the representatives of another portion, cannot be a constitutional Congress, when the representation of each State forms an integral part of the whole.
This amendment is tendered to Georgia for ratification, under that power in the Constitution which authorizes two-thirds of the Congress to propose amendments. We have endeavored to establish that Georgia had a right, in the first place, as part of the Congress to act upon the question, "Shall these amendments be proposed?" Every other excluded State had the same right.
The first constitutional privilege has been arbitrarily denied. Had these amendments been submitted to a constitutional Congress, they never would have been proposed to the States. Two-thirds of the whole Congress never would have proposed to eleven States voluntarily to reduce their political power in the Union, and at the same time, disfranchise the larger portion of the intellect, integrity and patriotism of the eleven co-equal States. (Georgia House Journal, November 9, 1866, pp. 66-67)
The Florida Legislature, by Resolution of December 5, 1866, protested as follows:
Let this alteration be made in the organic system and some new and more startling demands may or may not be required by the predominant party previous to allowing the ten States now unlawfully and unconstitutionally deprived of their right of representation to enter the Halls of the National Legislature. Their right of representation is guaranteed by the Constitution of this country and there is no act, not even that of rebellion, can deprive them of its exercise. (Florida House Journal, 1866)
The South Carolina Legislature by Resolution of November 27, 1866 protested as follows:
Eleven of the Southern States, including South Carolina, are deprived of their representation in Congress. Although their Senators and Representatives have been duly elected and have presented themselves for the purpose of taking their seats, their credentials have, in most instances, been laid upon the table without being read, or have been referred to a committee, who have failed to make any report on the subject. In short, Congress has refused to exercise its Constitutional functions, and decide either upon the election, the return, or the qualification of these selected by States and people to represent us. Some of the Senators and Representatives from the Southern States were prepared to take the test oath, but even these have been persistently ignored, and kept out of the seats to which they were entitled under the Constitution and laws. Hence this amendment has not been proposed by "two-thirds of both Houses" of a legally constituted Congress, and is not, Constitutionally or legitimately, before a single Legislature for ratification. (South Carolina House Journal, 1866, pp. 33 and 34)
The North Carolina Legislature protested by Resolution of December 6, 1866 as follows:
The Federal Constitution declares in substance, that Congress shall consist of a House of Representatives, composed of members apportioned among the respective States in the ratio of their population, and of a Senate, composed of two members from each State. And in the Article which concerns Amendments, it is expressly provided that 'no State, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.' The contemplated Amendment was not proposed to the States by a Congress thus constituted. At the time of its adoption, the eleven seceding States were deprived of representation, both in the Senate and House, although they all, except the State of Texas, had Senators and Representatives duly elected and claiming their privileges under the Constitution. In consequence of this, these States had no voice on the important question of proposing the Amendment. Had they been allowed to give their votes, the proposition would doubtless have failed to command the required two-thirds majority.
If the votes of these States are necessary to a valid ratification of the Amendment, they were equally necessary on the question of proposing it to the States; for it would be difficult, in the opinion of the Committee, to show by what process in logic, men of intelligence could arrive at a different conclusion. (North Carolina Senate Journal, 1866-67, pp. 92 and 93.)
You're 100% correct!
The fact that twenty-three (23) Senators had been unlawfully excluded from the U.S. Senate, in order to secure a two-thirds vote for adoption of the Joint Resolution proposing the 14th Amendment is shown by Resolutions of protest adopted by the following state legislatures:
The New Jersey Legislature by Resolution of March 27, 1868, protested as follows:
The said proposed amendment not having yet received the assent of the three-fourths of the states, which is necessary to make it valid, the natural and constitutional right of this state to withdraw its assent is undeniable ***.
That it being necessary by the constitution that every amendment to the same should be proposed by two-thirds of both houses of congress, the authors of said proposition, for the purpose of securing the assent of the requisite majority, determined to, and did, exclude from the said two houses eighty representatives from eleven states of the Union, upon the pretense that there were no such states in the Union; but, finding that two-thirds of the remainder of the said houses could not be brought to assent to the said proposition, they deliberately formed and carried out the design of mutilating the integrity of the United States Senate, and without any pretext or justification, other than the possession of the power, without the right, and in palpable violation of the Constitution, ejected a member of their own body, representing this state, and thus practically denied to New Jersey its equal suffrage in the Senate, and thereby nominally secured the vote of two-thirds of the said houses. (New Jersey Acts, March 27, 1868)
The Alabama Legislature protested against being deprived of representation in the Senate of the U.S. Congress. (Alabama House Journal, 1866, pp. 210-213)
The Texas Legislature by Resolution on October 15, 1866, protested as follows:
The amendment to the Constitution proposed by this joint resolution as Article XIV is presented to the Legislature of Texas for its action thereon, under Article V of that Constitution. This Article V, providing the mode of making amendments to that instrument, contemplates the participation by all the States through their representatives in Congress, in proposing amendments. As representatives in Congress from nearly one-third of the States were excluded from the Congress proposing the amendments, the constitutional requirement was not complied with; it was violated in letter and in spirit; and the proposing of these amendments to States which were excluded from all participation in their initiation in Congress, is a nullity. (Texas House Journal, 1866, p. 577.)
The Arkansas Legislature, by Resolution on December 17, 1866, protested as follows:
The Constitution authorized two-thirds of both houses of Congress to propose amendments; and, as eleven States were excluded from deliberation and decision upon the one now submitted, the conclusion is inevitable that it is not proposed by legal authority, but in palpable violation of the Constitution. (Arkansas House Journal, 1866, p. 287.)
The Georgia Legislature, by Resolution on November 1866, protested as follows:
Since the reorganization of the State government, Georgia has elected Senators and Representatives. So has every other State. They have been arbitrarily refused admission to their seats, not on the ground that the qualifications of the members elected did not conform to the fourth paragraph, second section, first article of the Constitution, but because their right of representation was denied by a portion of the States having equal but not greater rights than themselves. They have in fact been forcibly excluded; and, inasmuch as all legislative power granted by the States to Congress is defined, and this power of exclusion is not among the powers expressly or by implication, the assemblage, at the capitol, of representatives from a portion of the States, to the exclusion of the representatives of another portion, cannot be a constitutional Congress, when the representation of each State forms an integral part of the whole.
This amendment is tendered to Georgia for ratification, under that power in the Constitution which authorizes two-thirds of the Congress to propose amendments. We have endeavored to establish that Georgia had a right, in the first place, as part of the Congress to act upon the question, "Shall these amendments be proposed?" Every other excluded State had the same right.
The first constitutional privilege has been arbitrarily denied. Had these amendments been submitted to a constitutional Congress, they never would have been proposed to the States. Two-thirds of the whole Congress never would have proposed to eleven States voluntarily to reduce their political power in the Union, and at the same time, disfranchise the larger portion of the intellect, integrity and patriotism of the eleven co-equal States. (Georgia House Journal, November 9, 1866, pp. 66-67)
The Florida Legislature, by Resolution of December 5, 1866, protested as follows:
Let this alteration be made in the organic system and some new and more startling demands may or may not be required by the predominant party previous to allowing the ten States now unlawfully and unconstitutionally deprived of their right of representation to enter the Halls of the National Legislature. Their right of representation is guaranteed by the Constitution of this country and there is no act, not even that of rebellion, can deprive them of its exercise. (Florida House Journal, 1866)
The South Carolina Legislature by Resolution of November 27, 1866 protested as follows:
Eleven of the Southern States, including South Carolina, are deprived of their representation in Congress. Although their Senators and Representatives have been duly elected and have presented themselves for the purpose of taking their seats, their credentials have, in most instances, been laid upon the table without being read, or have been referred to a committee, who have failed to make any report on the subject. In short, Congress has refused to exercise its Constitutional functions, and decide either upon the election, the return, or the qualification of these selected by States and people to represent us. Some of the Senators and Representatives from the Southern States were prepared to take the test oath, but even these have been persistently ignored, and kept out of the seats to which they were entitled under the Constitution and laws. Hence this amendment has not been proposed by "two-thirds of both Houses" of a legally constituted Congress, and is not, Constitutionally or legitimately, before a single Legislature for ratification. (South Carolina House Journal, 1866, pp. 33 and 34)
The North Carolina Legislature protested by Resolution of December 6, 1866 as follows:
The Federal Constitution declares in substance, that Congress shall consist of a House of Representatives, composed of members apportioned among the respective States in the ratio of their population, and of a Senate, composed of two members from each State. And in the Article which concerns Amendments, it is expressly provided that 'no State, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.' The contemplated Amendment was not proposed to the States by a Congress thus constituted. At the time of its adoption, the eleven seceding States were deprived of representation, both in the Senate and House, although they all, except the State of Texas, had Senators and Representatives duly elected and claiming their privileges under the Constitution. In consequence of this, these States had no voice on the important question of proposing the Amendment. Had they been allowed to give their votes, the proposition would doubtless have failed to command the required two-thirds majority.
If the votes of these States are necessary to a valid ratification of the Amendment, they were equally necessary on the question of proposing it to the States; for it would be difficult, in the opinion of the Committee, to show by what process in logic, men of intelligence could arrive at a different conclusion. (North Carolina Senate Journal, 1866-67, pp. 92 and 93.)
Actually, Barron v. Baltimore established that the Bill of Rights only limited the Federal government, and in practice, State governments were regularly passing legislation that would be a violation of the BIll of Rights.The several States were ALREADY bound to uphold our UNalienable
SeekLiberty
Member
- Joined
- May 29, 2007
- Messages
- 4,534
Hey, it's all good. We're all in this process of "group unwashing" and all this discussion is getting our heads clear of Government inculcation which they FEAR.
- SL
SeekLiberty
Member
- Joined
- May 29, 2007
- Messages
- 4,534
Anybody care to guess what we can do to solve this?
Another lawyer in a long black dress trying to legislate and twist the interpretation of WE THE PEOPLE's Constitution!
Please read the book "The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution" and it will tell you all about this.
Did you know that modern "constitutional law" has almost nothing to do with the Constitution?
That "State governments were regularly passing legislation that would be a violation of the Bill of Rights" is a problem for WE THE PEOPLE in the several States to fix.
Has the 14th Amendment stopped this from happening NOW? lol. Of course not, it happens at every level of Government.
There is only ONE appropriate and proper, CORRECT Constitutional way for WE THE PEOPLE to stop this from happening. Anybody care to guess?
- SL
Another lawyer in a long black dress trying to legislate and twist the interpretation of WE THE PEOPLE's Constitution!
Please read the book "The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution" and it will tell you all about this.
Did you know that modern "constitutional law" has almost nothing to do with the Constitution?
That "State governments were regularly passing legislation that would be a violation of the Bill of Rights" is a problem for WE THE PEOPLE in the several States to fix.
Has the 14th Amendment stopped this from happening NOW? lol. Of course not, it happens at every level of Government.
There is only ONE appropriate and proper, CORRECT Constitutional way for WE THE PEOPLE to stop this from happening. Anybody care to guess?
- SL
In the first quote, he stated what he feels was the influences on the founding fathers. That is history, not his opinion on how things should be. And that there is no rigid division does not mean there can't be one.
Second quote, I am Muslim, but I recognize that the founders of this country were Christians so of course the country has a Christian heritage. We can't change history. It's no big deal. But if you truly believe in separation of church and state as it seems you do, then you should realize that he means the secularists are at war against religion, not against the state.
SeekLiberty
Member
- Joined
- May 29, 2007
- Messages
- 4,534
aravoth
Member
- Joined
- May 15, 2007
- Messages
- 2,933
I don't see the problem. The government does not force religion on anyone. Which is why he has said over and over agian that church and state is a local issue, not a federal issue, why? Cause this isn't the CCCP.
People ahve a right to believe in whatever they want, be it god, allah, the flying purple people eater, or nothing. Politicians are american citizens, so naturally they retain that right as well.
Our nation does have roots in judeo-christian theology, wether you like it or not, it's a fact. But the founders recognized the need for openess, which is why anything goes. Anything except people attempting to assualt religion in all it's forms, just becuase they believe in nothing.
sorianofan
Banned
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2007
- Messages
- 577
Atheists, wqho believe God is just a retarded fantasy, get WAY too angry whenever anything related to God gets brought up. They are often more obsessed with God than theists.
Ron Paul will not impose Christianity on people. To dislike him because he is religious is prejudice, plain and simple.
Ron Paul will not impose Christianity on people. To dislike him because he is religious is prejudice, plain and simple.
I agree with a lot of what you say except in bold and underlined italics.
NOTHING in our Constitution "extends the right" to WE THE PEOPLE. Our Individual Rights are UNalieniable. Our Rights PRE-date our Constitution. They are natural Rights.
The perverted idea that the Constitution of our American Republic "extends us rights" is communistic' bullshit, and is exactly how things were turned around to control you. IMO, this demonic idea is the furthest thing away from true Christianity that I know.
Also, the unConstitutional 14th Amendment was not properly ratified. It "granted" no Rights to Individuals that our federal Constitution, before that "Amendment," did not already protect or respect. The whole thing was a scam by our criminal Congress. It was an unConstitutional and invalid Amendment that was designed to look like it FREED but actually ENSLAVED.
(Yes, even back then, which President Andrew Jackson objected to its constitutionality by the way, our Congress were full of criminals like it is today.)
The design was to turn every "state Citizen" into a federally controlled "U.S. citizen." Have you ever signed anything that asked you "Are you a U.S. citizen?" Did you acknowledge you were?
Americans really need to learn their history to find out what happened to them.
In times of War, the General Government uses its opportunity to oppress its Countrymen.
op·press - to burden with cruel or unjust impositions or restraints; subject to a burdensome or harsh exercise of authority or power: a people oppressed by totalitarianism.
"It is difficult to emphasize strongly enough, the importance of this memorandum written by Judge Perez. History is always written by the 'victor'. In this case — again — the victor was the small group of powerful U.S. and International financiers who have orchestrated every war in which Americans have fought and died, and who have installed their minions in all levels of both federal and state government today... executive, legislative, judicial, bureaucratic. Because this group also controls the media and the educational system in America, they have successfully promulgated their version of the War of Northern Aggression which they labeled the 'Civil War'."
For more about the fourteenth amendment, go to ...
http://www.SweetLiberty.org/fourteenth.amend.htm
Keep your eyes wide open my Liberty Seekers!
- SL
This is very interesting. I never heard of this before.
But before the 14th amendment weren't people in one state perfectly free to travel to any other state and even move there without restriction? I would think that this means they were already "citizens of the U.S."
And how could an amendment to the constitution be unconstitutional? I can understand if it conflicts with something that preceded it without repealing it, maybe. I dunno.
Oh, btw, to continue the other part of the conversation, I too, am an atheist, but more of the agnostic kind. I'm really just areligious.
I don't see why it should be ok for the 10 commandments or pictures of Jesus should be used a decorations in government buildings. I know it's not particularly unlawful or unconstitutional since "Congress made no law" and neither did any state legislature. Someone that works there just put up a decoration by fiat and that person happens to have the last word about how the building is decorated, for some reason. I guess if I were a judge or some other public servant, I'd want to test the system a bit, see what would happen. In my courthouse, I'd put a nice statue of baphomet right in the middle of the foyer to greet all who came in. It's just decoration. There was no law saying it had to be there. What could people's objections be? There is no separation of church and state, is there?
And about the term "secular." I take that to mean "not bound by religious rules." I think the government and its laws should never be bound by religious rules, so the law should always be secular.
And, sorianofan, this is one "atheist" who doesn't obsess with god or religion.
I think that is kind of funny that someone by saying "I don't believe in God" is saying that there is a god but that he doesen't believe in it........ better to say " I have no opinion about the one that you refer to as God".
I for one believe in "The Force" that which is everything and is everywhere......yes I know, from "Star Wars".......just don't call me R2D2
I for one believe in "The Force" that which is everything and is everywhere......yes I know, from "Star Wars".......just don't call me R2D2
michaelwise
Member
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2007
- Messages
- 3,482
You can please some of the people all of the time, but you can't please all of the people all of the time.
micahnelson
Member
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2007
- Messages
- 3,077
We just need to please a majority of people in certain districts of certain states up until about the 5th of November 2008. =)
Similar threads
