Departments
Front Page
Constitutional Intro
Constitution & Bill of Rights
Constitution vs Treaties
Constitutional Rights
Civil Rights
Supreme Court
Electoral College
Justice & Juries
Case Law
Natural Law
Law Precedents
Executive Orders
Judicial Accountability
News Media Bias
Taxes
Gun Ownership
2nd Amendment
Gun Issues
The United Nations
World Issues
Viewpoints
American Loyalty
Citizen's Comments
Youth & Crime
Police Actions
World/Olympic Shooting
The Sounding Board
Links
Library
US Times
Save Your Guns
Shots Heard Downrange
U.S. History/Formation
Words of Wisdom
Voting Recommendations
Constitution Defender
Editorial/Editorial Policy
Constitution Conflicts
Corporate Profiles
FACTS
 
 

 

14th Amendment

The Original Intent of the 14th Amendment

Afro-centric views of the purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment are NOT supported by the "First Legislative Construction" of that Amendment by Congress (i.e., 42 USC'sections 1983, 1985, 1986) nor by the contemporaneous and cumulative interpretations of the United States'supreme Court. (see cases and statutes below).

The Fourteenth Amendment was originally intended to give even the "humblest" WHITE citizen born in any state an "assurance that, for his protection, he can invoke the whole power of the government." The Fourteenth Amendment was intended to prohibit the States from disarming American Citizens.

http://www.sierratimes.com/03/02/26/
arpubrg022603.htm

To learn the Fourteenth Amendment's "original intent," and what it potentially means to you, then read the concurring opinions of Justice BRADLEY, SWAYNE and FIELD in Bartemeyer v. Iowa (1873):

"By that portion of the fourteenth amendment by which no State may make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, or take life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, it has now become the fundamental law of this country that life, liberty, and property (which include 'the pursuit of happiness') are sacred rights, which the Constitution of the United States guarantees to its humblest citizen against oppressive legislation, whether national or local, so that he cannot be deprived of them without due process of law.."

Before this amendment and the thirteenth amendment were adopted, the States had supreme authority over all these matters, and the National government, except in a few particulars, could afford no protection to the individual against arbitrary and oppressive legislation. After the civil war had closed, the same authority was asserted, and, in the States recently in insurrection, was exercised to the oppression of the freedmen; and towards citizens of the North seeking residence there, or citizens resident there who had maintained their loyalty during the war for nationality, a feeling of jealousy and dislike existed which could not fail soon to find expression in discriminating and hostile legislation. It was to prevent the possibility of such legislation in future, and its enforcement where already adopted, that the fourteenth amendment was directed. It grew out of the feeling that a union which had been maintained by such costly sacrifices was, after all, worthless if a citizen could not be protected in all his fundamental rights everywhere -- North and South, East and West-throughout the limits of the Republic.

The [fourteenth] amendment was not, as held in the opinion of the majority [in the Slaughter-House Cases], primarily intended to confer citizenship on the negro race. It had a much broader purpose; it was intended to justify legislation [i.e., now codified as 42 USC'sections 1983, 1985, 1986] , extending the protection of the National government over the common rights of all citizens of the United States, and thus obviate objections to the legislation [i.e., the Civil Rights Act of 1866, and the Freemen's Bureau Act] adopted for the protection of the emancipated race. It was intended to make it possible for all persons, which necessarily included those of every race and color, to live in peace and security wherever the jurisdiction of the nation reached. It, therefore, recognized, if it did not create, a National citizenship, and made all persons citizens except those who preferred to remain under the protection of a foreign government; and declared that their privileges and immunities, which embrace the fundamental rights belonging to citizens of all free governments, should not be abridged by any State. This National citizenship [85 U.S. 129, 141] is primary, and not secondary. It clothes its possessor, or would do so if not shorn of its efficiency by construction, with the right, when his privileges and immunities are invaded by partial and discriminating legislation, to appeal from his State to his Nation, and gives him the assurance that, for his protection, he can invoke the whole power of the government." http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=85&invol=129

That profound declaration of the purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment is a correct and contemporaneous'statement of the "original intent" of the First Section of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, and that view was correctly and fully embraced by the entire Supreme Court of the United States (up until the present, Rehnquist, Supreme Court). See, cases collected in "Law" (Part 1) and the recently created Doctrine of Unauthorized Deprivation (Part 2) at www.billstclair.com/ferran/markferran1.html

As the Justices said, the Fourteenth Amendment"was intended to justify legislation [i.e., now codified as 42 USC'sections 1983, 1985, 1986], extending the protection of the National government over the common rights of all citizens of the United States, and thus obviate objections to the legislation adopted for the protection of the emancipated race." The legislation effecting the purpose referred to, enacted by Congress (in 1871) to extend the "protection of the National government over the common rights of all citizens of the United States,"was titled," An Act to Enforce the Provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment" approved April 20, 1871 (now codified in 42 USC'sections 1983, 1985, 1986):42 U.S.C. Section 1983.

Civil action for deprivation of rights:

"Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress."

Title 42, United States Code, Sec. 1983 (History: R.S. Sec. 1979 derived from act Apr. 20, 1871, ch. 22, Sec. 1, 17 Stat. 13. "An Act to Enforce the Provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment."

42 U.S.C. Section 1985. Conspiracy to interfere with civil rights:

(2) If two or more persons in any State or Territory ... conspire for the purpose of impeding, hindering, obstructing, or defeating, in any manner, the due course of justice in any State or Territory, with intent to deny to any citizen the equal protection of the laws, or to injure him or his property for lawfully enforcing, or attempting to enforce, the right of any person, or class of persons, to the equal protection of the laws;(3) [or] If two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire... for the purpose of depriving, either directly or indirectly, any person or class of persons of the equal protection of the laws, or of equal privileges and immunities under the laws; or for the purpose of preventing or hindering the constituted authorities of any State or Territory from giving or securing to all persons within such State or Territory the equal protection of the laws; or if two or more persons conspire to prevent by force, intimidation, or threat, any citizen who is lawfully entitled to vote, from giving his support or advocacy in a legal manner, toward or in favor of the election of any lawfully qualified person as an elector for President or Vice President, or as a Member of Congress of the United States; or to injure any citizen in person or property on account of such support or advocacy; in any case of conspiracy set forth in this section, if one or more persons engaged therein do, or cause to be done, any act in furtherance of the object of such conspiracy, whereby another is injured in his person or property, or deprived of having and exercising any right or privilege of a citizen of the United States, the party so injured or deprived may have an action for the recovery of damages occasioned by such injury or deprivation, against any one or more of the conspirators.

Title 42, United States Code, Sec. 1985. [History: R.S. Sec. 1980 derived from acts July 31, 1861, ch. 33, 12 Stat. 284; Apr. 20, 1871, ch. 22, Sec. 2, 17 Stat. 13 "An Act to Enforce the Provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment." Section was formerly classified to section 47 of Title 8, Aliens and Nationality.]

This statute, enacted to aid in "'the preservation of human liberty and human rights'" Owen v. City of Independence, 445 US 622, 636 (1980), reflects a congressional judgment that a "damages remedy against the offending party is a vital component of any scheme for vindicating cherished constitutional guarantees." As remedial legislation, [the Act to Enforce the Provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment] is to be construed generously to further its primary purpose.

Gomez v. Toledo, 446 US 635 (1980).

The commandment in the Fourteenth Amendment that the People in each state must give to every "person" within their jurisdiction the "equal protection of the laws," is a codification of the Ancient Hebrew "One Law" (for citizens and strangers alike) principle and a codification of Jesus' Golden Rule (i.e., you and your neighbors should be treated equally by all humans administering the power of the sword). "It sought equality of treatment of all persons... similarly situated... It means that no person or class of persons shall be denied the same protection of the laws which is enjoyed by other persons or other classes in the same place and under like circumstances." Truax v. Corrigan, 257 US 312, 331, 338 (1921). http://billstclair.com/ferran/markferran1.html

The Due Process of Law commandment in the Fourteenth Amendment is a codification of the rule prescribed in Deuteronomy that the King shall read and keep within the Law, and deviate neither to The Right Nor to The Left, nor shall he commit theft, nor murder. "The due process clause requires that every man shall have... the benefit of the general law,... so that every citizen shall hold his life, liberty and property and immunities under the protection of the general rules which govern society. It of course tends to secure equality..." Truax v. Corrigan, 257 US 312, 331, 338 (1921).
http://billstclair.com/ferran/markferran1.html

The Judeo-Christian pedigree of the Law Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment is why the Devil now seeks to use deceit and earthly hosts of deceit to tear down that Christian Law. That is why you have Teachers of the Law today, like the Whitewashed Tombs of old, declaring that only certain people are "neighbors" entitled to the protection of the Golden Rule prescribed in the Fourteenth Amendment. The methods of the Devil have not changed. The words of the Constitution have not changed. What has changed is that the Churches no longer teach the Constitution as containing the Expressed Will of God on Earth, and the People no longer recognize that God's Commandments already were, after much bloody struggle and Martyrdom, written into the Constitution of the United States.

You can read the Congressional Debates (links below) during the 39th (1866) and 41st Congress (1871) which thoroughly discuss the purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment. First, I recommend that you read Jon Roland's recitation of the legislative history and purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment, at:
http://www.constitution.org/col/intent_14th.htm

Then read the "Act to Enforce the Provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment (April 20, 1871) (now codified as 42 USC sections 1983, 1985 and 1986)" and read the bare-majority opinion and the Dissenting Opinions in the'slaughter House cases (1871), and read the decision appealed from in that case (which held that the Civil Rights Act of 1866 benefited "white citizens").

If you want to understand the Fourteenth Amendment, and 42 U.S.C. section 1983, 1985, and 1986, and its Christian Purposes, read the Congressional Globe that includes the Debates leading up to the enactment of the Act to Enforce the Fourteenth Amendment on April 20, 1871:
http://memory.loc.gov/cgibin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=100/llcg100.db&recNum=2

I will warn you, reading this History may make you sad and angry as an American to realize what contemporary Judges have done to destroy this Christian Law, and the hope it once offered to mankind. See, Part 1 and Part 2 at
http://billstclair.com/ferran/markferran1.html

Here is the list of Pages of the 1871 Congressional Globe containing the debates on the Bill that became The civil rights act of 1871 (the Act to Enforce the Fourteenth Amendment), and 42 USC s 1983, 1985, 1986: H. R. No. 320-- "To enforce the provisions of the fourteenth amendment to the Constitution of the United States."--[By Mr. Shellabarger.] Reported, 317; discussed, 317, 329, 335, 351, 361, 364, 376, 393, 397, 408, 409, 421, 436, 441, 463, 475, 489, 490, 508; passed, 522; explanations, 582; passed Senate with amendments, 716; discussed, 723; conference, 725, 734; conference report, 749; discussed, 750, 787, 798; report agreed to by Senate, 749; rejected by House, 801; new conference, 801, 802; conference report, 804; discussed, 804; agreed to by House, 808; by Senate, 804; enrolled, 833; approved, 838.

In Senate: Received from House, 523; referred, 523; reported, 538; discussed, 567, 599, 645, 653, 685, 686; passed with amendments, 709; conference, 727, 728; conference report, 754; discussed, 754, 769, 773; concurred in by Senate, 779; disagreed to by House, 810; new conference, 810; conference report, 819; discussed, 819; concurred in by Senate, 831; by House, 832; enrolled, 832.
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/hlaw:@field(DOCID+@lit(cg0994

As for the Ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, it was a Peace Treaty between the former states in the South (who had effectively seceded) and the victorious coalition of States in the North. The first American Civil War was waged between states, and the Peace Treaty (14th Amendment) was Ratified in accordance with principles International Law and the Law of War. Those southern states who had waived and forfeited their Constitutional Rights as member-states of the Union had no legal standing to complain that they were later "forced" or coerced into ratifying that Amendment as a condition to their re-admission to the Union. The provision of the 14th Amendment which gave Congress the power to deny Offices within the Government of the United States to formerly rebellious southerners was necessary to prevent by means of "infiltration" the destruction of the Union which had been attempted by the recent War between the states.

The Provisions relating to citizenship and protection of "persons" were immediately necessary to empower Congress to prevent the southern states from again denying the protection of the Law, and the status of state-citizens, to those citizens of the United States who had remained loyal within, or who later entered with loyalty to, the Union. Those Treaty provisions, giving Congress the Power to enforce those principles of International Law, were Necessary in order to preserve the Peace which had been secured at a great cost to human Life, Liberty and Property. The Fourteenth Amendment was NECESSARY to the preservation of the "more perfect Union" of American states, and it "grew out of the feeling that a union which had been maintained by such costly sacrifices was, after all, worthless if a citizen could not be protected in all his fundamental rights everywhere- North and South, East and West-throughout the limits of the Republic."
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=85&invol=129

Salus populi est suprema lex. (The welfare of the people is the supreme law).

What the later People of the "more perfect Union" have done, or allowed to be done, to themselves since then, under color of the 16th Amendment, the Spending Clause, the Commerce Clause, and the Equal Protection Clause, is wholly their own responsibility, because they had the Power to Vote, as "citizens of the United States," except to the extent that what has been done has been done by Lying Divinations of Federal Judges who have been placed into Tenure almost completely beyond the Republican Forms of our Government. The Impeachment Power of Congress has been far too idle.

In my opinion, the current Justices of the Supreme Court can be and ought to be Impeached for effectively repudiating and repealing the fundamental Constitutional principles of Magna Carta that are EXPRESSLY incorporated in the Due Process of Law provisions of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. Repudiating Magna Carta is the ultimate "deal-breaker" among those who would otherwise support a Government, and justifies those who would alter or abolish that Government. See, "Part 2" at http://billstclair.com/ferran/markferran1.html

Mark R. Ferran BSEE scl JD mcl
www.billstclair.com/ferran/markferran1.html

Armed Females of America
afa@armedfemalesofamerica.com