The 14th Amendment original intent of the (14th) to the US & without question is misinterpreted to give citizenship to babies born in the US of illegals. These babies, via birthright citizenship, act as anchor babies & can, upon reaching age of majority, facilitate bringing extended family into the US in order to obtain citizenship. A Constitutional amendment would be necessary to remedy the misinterpretation & action is urgently needed to stop this abuse of R country by these leaches.
The ratification of the constititution is not unconstitional. People who framed the constitution had no way of being able to look ahead and see what conditions may cause it be ratified. First is the reason why the 14th admendment was put in, and by virtue of the fact that it is an "admendment" tells u it can be ratified.
@TheRebelpreacher did I say anything about illegally. I said they are the new slaves,they do what the white or black man will not,and that is work.Southren used to work harder then the Northerns. I had a friend ,who was here illegal,I apply for a job were he was working. The men said this to my face,a white men can not hold up to the job. Shovling manure from a stall and walking a horse 2 hrs a day-7 day a week.I always work harder then others and did not understand.
@TheRebelpreacher This notion that black and white people dont work is a farce. Who do you think did field work, labor jobs, maids, cooks, etc? Its just that people work on a different level now. However, we cannot create a permanent under class. People need to move up so that others can take those jobs at entry level or jobs requiring little or no skills. I know ppl who have picked fruit, tobacco, etc. People do what they need to do to survive.
RetSquid is a government groupie. He likes to bow down and lick his Master's boots. Especially after they've just stepped in bull shit. Because that's what he's full of.
If the government has any authority at all to tax us even one cent on the fruits of our labor, then they also have the same authority to take it all. Oddly enough the same premise is true about our right to keep and bear arms. If we have the right to own a rifle or a handgun, then we also have the same right to keep and bear a nuclear bomb if we want. It's when bureaucrats try to regulate our rights that we begin to lose them. Just don't nuke me before trying to reason with me. Fair enough ? LOL
Well, I won't fault you for being banned... you seem to know your share of stuff, at least by reading the ocmments... ... I do enjoy your Marshall quote. It tells me the true power is in the pen ... not the sword.
Is there a constitution for the District of Columbia ... Did it also join the Union ? Or did the Virign Mary cede land for it ? Do you believe the Magna Charta was nullified also ? Especially the part regarding a freeman and his court ? Can a practicing BAR attorney really be a judge ?
1789 Judiciary act, Section 9, District Courts (saving to suitors, in all cases, the right of a common law remedy, where the common law is competent to give it; and shall also have exclusive original cognizance of all seizures on land, or other waters than as aforesaid, made, and of all suits for penalties and forfeitures incurred, under the laws of the United States.) ..
Stop looking for the "facts" to support your view. Just think... what kind of a world/country would you like to live in? Should we concern ourselves with the well being of our fellow citizens, or should we only think of ourselves? THINK FOR YOURSELF!!
The 14th amendment is largely responsible for the corporate dominance of our government today. We lost our democracy while we were sleeping. REPEAL THE 14TH AMENDMENT and don't vote for anyone that doesn't see it that way!
stupid, the 13th amendment frees everybody. READ the CONSTITUTION. Every free person is protected by it from slavery. You think white people would form a document that would allow them to enslave each other? The 13th amendment ends slavery and the constitution already grants equality to all FREE people. Anyone not owned by someone else is free and protected. We don't need the 14th amendment it is nothing more than an excuse for the feds to increase governmental power.
no the 13th expands your rights by freeing you and putting you under constitutional protection. The 14th isn't needed as the constitution already protects all free people. Otherwise we could've had white slavery.
Incorrect, the 13th abolished slaqvery and the 14th puts you under protection (due process clause). Before that none of the Bill of Rights applied to the States, some still dont.
We could have had white slavery at any time, blacks were slaves because before the 13th and 14th amendments they were not considered 'people'.
People make slaves of those who are not like them.
The supreme court has ruled that the 50 states are countries with respect to each other but under the 14th amendment system you are participating in rebellion against your de jure country when you vote, through contract as well and that is why you have to pay IRS and so forth.. and are responsible for the national debt. watch all 6 vids for more info please watch watch?v=G1B33IvnJ4M&feature=ch annel_page
Our Government Is Not A Deomcracy! Our Government Is A Republic! You Blasphem Our Republic - when you call it a Democracy! Democracy Is 50.01 % Of The People Imposing Their Will On 49.99% 99.99 % Of A Republic Can Not Impose Itself On 0.01% Of The Minority! Our Republic Protects our Personal Liberty (Whenever you or I are in the minority) A Democracy is 2 wolves & a sheep voting on: "What's for dinner?" A Democracy Is Tyranny!
Please search "Voluntary Servitude by Deception" right here on YouTube to learn how through the lure of social security benefits we have been deceived into forfeiting our freedom in lieu of becoming a slave to the federal government by voluntarily entering into a "contract of adhesion" with the District of Columbia.
If you want equal protection under the law, then you should be looking to Article 4 Section 2 for that, and not the 14th Amendment. Whereas the 14th is not the great equalizer that everyone has intentionally been mislead to believe it is supposed to be. In fact, quite the opposite. It is the great reducer of us all to slaves. Please click on my video link above to learn more about this. Thank you.
@JustAboutMyPolitics It's nice to see someone else who is enlightened. The sharecropping the slaves still had to undergo was still slavery the degree was just reduced somewhat. But with the Government being without equal now chattel slavery will return as the "freedoms" we have are privileges that can be taken away on a whim. We are defenseless and helpless against it's might. What's worse is that people are trying to take away the arms we still retain and make us completely subservient to DC.
Just is right do you think white people would form a document that would allow them to enslave each other? all FREE people are protected from slavery.
"The privileges and immunities clause of the 14th Amendment protects very few rights because it neither incorporates the Bill of Rights nor protects all rights of individual citizens. Instead this provision protects only those rights peculiar to being a citizen of the federal government; It does not protect those rights which relate to state citizenship." Jones v. Temmer 829 F. Supp. 1226 (1993)
Supreme Court: US vs. Cruikshank, 92 US 542 56 P. 545:
"There is in our Political System, a government of each of the several states and a government of the United States. Each is distinct from the other and has citizens of its own." .
Affirmed 278 US 123, Tashiro vs. Jordan
"There is a clear distinction between national citizenship and state citizenship."
Supreme Court: United States v. Cruikshank, 92 US 542, 549 (1875); quoted in Crosse v. Board of Supervisors, 221 A2d 433 (1966).
"Both before and after the Fourteenth Amendment to the federal Constitution, it has not been necessary for a person to be a citizen of the United States in order to be a citizen of his state. "
Read the Constitutions of each of the several sovereign states (Republics & Commonwealths) of the several united states of America. These documents (and your **state nationality**, NOT your U.S. federal citizenship) are the only means you have to preserve your **unalienable** rights.
Wright objects to the fact that the named plaintiff in this suit is the United States of America. He argues that only the United States and not the United States of America has standing to bring this action. These arguments are patently frivolous and the motion is thus summarily DENIED.
US v. Wright
...brought the lawsuit in the name of the United States of America rather than the United States. The argument is patently frivolous and merits no discussion.
No constitutionally we are citizens of our states and by being in the union through our states citizens of the union. State citizenship comes first. The states created the corporate feds not the other way around.
A "state" is "a government" (which is of a country). The USA is a union of states (i.e. governments) under a central government which is distinct from the individual governments of the separate countries of the Union.
This means that the "United States", is an AGENCY of the several states (which are countries). The "United States" is NOT a country!
However, the USA is a REPUBLIC of 50 sovereign countries (under the 10th Amendment).
"The only absolute and unqualified right of a United States citizen is to residence within the territorial boundaries of the United States." (which is located in the District of Columbia)
* USC (United States Code) Title 28 § 3002: Definition (15)
* UCC (Uniform Commercial Code) Article 9, § 9-307. [LOCATION OF UNITED STATES] (h)
Clause 17 limits not the power of Congress, but the power of the states. [T]he word exclusive was employed to eliminate any possibility that the legislative power of Congress over the District [of Columbia] was to be concurrent with that of the ceding states.
District of Columbia v. John R. Thompson Co., 346 U.S. 100, 109, 73 S.Ct. 1007, 1012, 97 L.Ed. 1480 (1953)
And now, as I said before, since virtually each and every one of us has already volunteered to be treated as a 14th Amendment person (primarily by signing a Social Security application form, but through many other contracts as well) we have all literally traded in our sovereign State Citizen status in lieu of voluntary servitude to the federal government seated in the District of Columbia; and are now "subjects" (i.e. slaves) to their plenary power.
However, the 14th Amendment created a whole new class of citizen in 1868. A 14th Amendment person is first subject to the plenary power of the District of Columbia pursuant to A.1 S.8. C.17 And then secondly to the State wherein they reside. So you can see that this citizenship is quite the opposite of what our founding fathers intended.
Of course there was. However, prior to 1868 (and even still today pursuant to Jones v Temmer in 1993 which I will cite in a moment) each individual American's sovereignty was not (and still is not supposed to be) derived from the District of Columbia, but rather from the State wherein one was born. So pursuant to proper jurisprudence, we are first citizens of a State. And then by virtue of our State citizenship, we are also citizens of the rest of the Union as well.
You're Welcome. However, you evidently don't know the real heinous truth behind the 14th Amendment like I thought you did. Independence was declared in America in 1776. Eleven years later in 1787, our Constitution was ratified. The 14th Amendment didn't come into existence (notice I didn't say ratified) until another 81 years after that. Was there no such thing as a "citicen of the United States" prior to 1868 ?
Whereas virtually each and every one of us has already ratified it on an individual basis when a contract was made with the District of Columbia for us to be treated as 14th Amendment persons when a signature of agreement was placed upon a Social Security application form, i.e. contract, either by ourselves or our parents.
I am an Anti-14th Amendment activist of sorts here on YouTube. And I very much appreciate your posting of this video. However, it doesn't matter whether it was lawfully ratified or not.
@polconnet Stockton a new jersey senator also removed his vote when he was ousted from Congress and sent a very nasty letter about what the amendments ratification would mean and the ramifications it would have on America's future generations.
30 States approved it and only rejected by Delaware on Feb 8, 1865; by Kentucky on Feb 24, 1865; by New Jersey on Mar 16, 1865; and by Mississippi on Dec 4, 1865.
@DanTheManDavis Yes it does. It doesn't exist. I'm with you what we must do is show people how everyone's rights are already protected via the body. The only purpose the 14th amendment has ever served has been to increase federal power and create the status of US corporate citizen. Constitutionally only a state can make you a citizen. The Government pushes the necessity of this for protecting "civil rights" but the founders knew all about civil rights that's why they are stressed in the body.
amazing !!
914light 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The 14th Amendment original intent of the (14th) to the US & without question is misinterpreted to give citizenship to babies born in the US of illegals. These babies, via birthright citizenship, act as anchor babies & can, upon reaching age of majority, facilitate bringing extended family into the US in order to obtain citizenship. A Constitutional amendment would be necessary to remedy the misinterpretation & action is urgently needed to stop this abuse of R country by these leaches.
onstageagain 8 months ago
but y should it be shocking or bad to allow all Americans the privilege to practice their civil liberties whether it was done legally or not.
Noufu1 9 months ago
bs...just sayinn.....
mrazhat21 1 year ago
The ratification of the constititution is not unconstitional. People who framed the constitution had no way of being able to look ahead and see what conditions may cause it be ratified. First is the reason why the 14th admendment was put in, and by virtue of the fact that it is an "admendment" tells u it can be ratified.
dontbsostupid7575 1 year ago
Mexican are the new slaves
TheRebelpreacher 1 year ago
@TheRebelpreacher did I say anything about illegally. I said they are the new slaves,they do what the white or black man will not,and that is work.Southren used to work harder then the Northerns. I had a friend ,who was here illegal,I apply for a job were he was working. The men said this to my face,a white men can not hold up to the job. Shovling manure from a stall and walking a horse 2 hrs a day-7 day a week.I always work harder then others and did not understand.
TheRebelpreacher 1 year ago
@TheRebelpreacher This notion that black and white people dont work is a farce. Who do you think did field work, labor jobs, maids, cooks, etc? Its just that people work on a different level now. However, we cannot create a permanent under class. People need to move up so that others can take those jobs at entry level or jobs requiring little or no skills. I know ppl who have picked fruit, tobacco, etc. People do what they need to do to survive.
dontbsostupid7575 1 year ago
However each state in the confederacy was required to re ratify the whole constitution before re admittance.
matthewsmc 1 year ago
Eric Jon Phelps proves that the 14th amendment was instituted to create the jesuit new world order.
Nuker1337 2 years ago
RetSquid is a government groupie. He likes to bow down and lick his Master's boots. Especially after they've just stepped in bull shit. Because that's what he's full of.
JustAboutMyPolitics 2 years ago 4
@JustAboutMyPolitics Yeah man I agree with ya! Say I like uzi machine guns. what type you got at your pad? Later bro.
NSA666999 1 year ago
If the government has any authority at all to tax us even one cent on the fruits of our labor, then they also have the same authority to take it all. Oddly enough the same premise is true about our right to keep and bear arms. If we have the right to own a rifle or a handgun, then we also have the same right to keep and bear a nuclear bomb if we want. It's when bureaucrats try to regulate our rights that we begin to lose them. Just don't nuke me before trying to reason with me. Fair enough ? LOL
JustAboutMyPolitics 1 year ago
Well, I won't fault you for being banned... you seem to know your share of stuff, at least by reading the ocmments... ... I do enjoy your Marshall quote. It tells me the true power is in the pen ... not the sword.
HoRuSHoRiZoN 2 years ago
Is there a constitution for the District of Columbia ... Did it also join the Union ? Or did the Virign Mary cede land for it ? Do you believe the Magna Charta was nullified also ? Especially the part regarding a freeman and his court ? Can a practicing BAR attorney really be a judge ?
HoRuSHoRiZoN 2 years ago
1789 Judiciary act, Section 9, District Courts (saving to suitors, in all cases, the right of a common law remedy, where the common law is competent to give it; and shall also have exclusive original cognizance of all seizures on land, or other waters than as aforesaid, made, and of all suits for penalties and forfeitures incurred, under the laws of the United States.) ..
HoRuSHoRiZoN 2 years ago
RetSquid fails cause of Diversity of Citizenship in the Federal Courts ....
HoRuSHoRiZoN 2 years ago
A contract has no power or is unenforceable if it is unlawful or illegally passed under the US constitution.!!!!!!!!
BillOfRiGHTs911 2 years ago
Land of the free? More like they will kill you if you don't like it ...
ben5017 2 years ago
Stop looking for the "facts" to support your view. Just think... what kind of a world/country would you like to live in? Should we concern ourselves with the well being of our fellow citizens, or should we only think of ourselves? THINK FOR YOURSELF!!
singray7 3 years ago
The 14th amendment is largely responsible for the corporate dominance of our government today. We lost our democracy while we were sleeping. REPEAL THE 14TH AMENDMENT and don't vote for anyone that doesn't see it that way!
singray7 3 years ago
YEAH, let's repeal the 14th Amendment and bring back slavery while we're at it!!
//Sarcasm off//
RetSquid 3 years ago
Go place your lips back on Uncle Sam's ass !
JustForAllMyAssholes 3 years ago
stupid, the 13th amendment frees everybody. READ the CONSTITUTION. Every free person is protected by it from slavery. You think white people would form a document that would allow them to enslave each other? The 13th amendment ends slavery and the constitution already grants equality to all FREE people. Anyone not owned by someone else is free and protected. We don't need the 14th amendment it is nothing more than an excuse for the feds to increase governmental power.
Luigi84289 2 years ago
After 7 months someone finally noticed that I referenced the wrong amendment!
"equality to all FREE people"
At the time slaves were not considered 'people'.
How does the 14th increase gov. power?
It expanded your rights.
RetSquid 2 years ago
no the 13th expands your rights by freeing you and putting you under constitutional protection. The 14th isn't needed as the constitution already protects all free people. Otherwise we could've had white slavery.
Luigi84289 2 years ago
Incorrect, the 13th abolished slaqvery and the 14th puts you under protection (due process clause). Before that none of the Bill of Rights applied to the States, some still dont.
We could have had white slavery at any time, blacks were slaves because before the 13th and 14th amendments they were not considered 'people'.
People make slaves of those who are not like them.
RetSquid 2 years ago
/watch?v=X6b4YrXayzE
statesRcountries 2 years ago
I did , it's full of crap.
RetSquid 2 years ago
I did watch that one, I proved the poster wrong so he banned my comments.
RetSquid 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The supreme court has ruled that the 50 states are countries with respect to each other but under the 14th amendment system you are participating in rebellion against your de jure country when you vote, through contract as well and that is why you have to pay IRS and so forth.. and are responsible for the national debt. watch all 6 vids for more info please watch watch?v=G1B33IvnJ4M&feature=ch annel_page
Freihals1 2 years ago
statesRcountries 2 years ago
A Republic is a form of Democracy.
"Democracy Is 50.01 % Of The People
Imposing Their Will On 49.99%"
That is a "pure" Democracy, which is different.
RetSquid 2 years ago
PLEASE VISIT deprogram(dot)us for deprogramming.
imunplugged 4 years ago
You have a bigger problem, the Rougue Gov. is not even adhering to the Constituiton..
ngonea 4 years ago 2
Rogue
pdljmpr61 2 years ago
Please search "Voluntary Servitude by Deception" right here on YouTube to learn how through the lure of social security benefits we have been deceived into forfeiting our freedom in lieu of becoming a slave to the federal government by voluntarily entering into a "contract of adhesion" with the District of Columbia.
JustAboutMyPolitics 4 years ago
Wait, are you implying that you are opposed to equal protection under the law and that you are in favor of slavery?
Who gives a damn if it was illegal? I'm sure it wasn't considered particularly legal for the 13 colonies to break off from the British Empire either.
smiledammit24 4 years ago
If you want equal protection under the law, then you should be looking to Article 4 Section 2 for that, and not the 14th Amendment. Whereas the 14th is not the great equalizer that everyone has intentionally been mislead to believe it is supposed to be. In fact, quite the opposite. It is the great reducer of us all to slaves. Please click on my video link above to learn more about this. Thank you.
JustAboutMyPolitics 4 years ago 4
@JustAboutMyPolitics It's nice to see someone else who is enlightened. The sharecropping the slaves still had to undergo was still slavery the degree was just reduced somewhat. But with the Government being without equal now chattel slavery will return as the "freedoms" we have are privileges that can be taken away on a whim. We are defenseless and helpless against it's might. What's worse is that people are trying to take away the arms we still retain and make us completely subservient to DC.
Luigi84289 1 year ago
Just is right do you think white people would form a document that would allow them to enslave each other? all FREE people are protected from slavery.
Luigi84289 2 years ago
pacinlaw(.)org/pdf/14th_Sectio n_2(.)php
statesRcountries 2 years ago
"The privileges and immunities clause of the 14th Amendment protects very few rights because it neither incorporates the Bill of Rights nor protects all rights of individual citizens. Instead this provision protects only those rights peculiar to being a citizen of the federal government; It does not protect those rights which relate to state citizenship." Jones v. Temmer 829 F. Supp. 1226 (1993)
DanTheManDavis 4 years ago 3
"Amendment protects very few rights because it neither incorporates the Bill of Rights nor protects all rights of individual citizens"
Because the Bill of Rights had already done so.
RetSquid 3 years ago
Supreme Court: US vs. Cruikshank, 92 US 542 56 P. 545:
"There is in our Political System, a government of each of the several states and a government of the United States. Each is distinct from the other and has citizens of its own." .
Affirmed 278 US 123, Tashiro vs. Jordan
"There is a clear distinction between national citizenship and state citizenship."
statesRcountries 3 years ago
Supreme Court: United States v. Cruikshank, 92 US 542, 549 (1875); quoted in Crosse v. Board of Supervisors, 221 A2d 433 (1966).
"Both before and after the Fourteenth Amendment to the federal Constitution, it has not been necessary for a person to be a citizen of the United States in order to be a citizen of his state. "
statesRcountries 3 years ago
Supreme Court: US vs. Valentine 288 F. Supp. 957
"The only absolute and unqualified right of a United States citizen is to residence within the territorial boundaries of the United States."
statesRcountries 3 years ago
Read the Constitutions of each of the several sovereign states (Republics & Commonwealths) of the several united states of America. These documents (and your **state nationality**, NOT your U.S. federal citizenship) are the only means you have to preserve your **unalienable** rights.
statesRcountries 3 years ago
What is the difference between the "United States" and "The United States of America"?
The "United States" is a federal corporation located in the District of Columbia.
* USC (United States Code) Title 28 § 3002: Definition (15)
* UCC (Uniform Commercial Code) Article 9, § 9-307. LOCATION OF UNITED STATES (h)
"We the people, of the United States..." means
"We the rulers, of the federal corporation located in the District of Columbia,"...
statesRcountries 3 years ago
Wright objects to the fact that the named plaintiff in this suit is the United States of America. He argues that only the United States and not the United States of America has standing to bring this action. These arguments are patently frivolous and the motion is thus summarily DENIED.
US v. Wright
...brought the lawsuit in the name of the United States of America rather than the United States. The argument is patently frivolous and merits no discussion.
US v. Spitzer
RetSquid 2 years ago
* UCC (Uniform Commercial Code) Article 9, § 9-307. Protection of Buyers of Goods.
You're 2 for 2 being wrong, wanna try for 3?
RetSquid 2 years ago
Look for Article 9, § 9-307 SECTION: (h) [Location of United States.]
Google this:
UCC (Uniform Commercial Code) Article 9, § 9-307. (h) [Location of United States.]
statesRcountries 2 years ago
Right we are citizens of our states not the district of columbia.
Luigi84289 2 years ago
We are citizens of The United States and whatever State you live in.
RetSquid 2 years ago
The 14th Amendment was never ratified!
Ergo, citizenship in a federal coporation, called the "United States" is a fraud!
/watch?v=X6b4YrXayzE
statesRcountries 2 years ago
You are factually incorrect, it was ratified.
People have always been Citizens of the United States when viewed from outside the U.S. and Citizens of thier State when viewed from inside the U.S.
It just like asking someone where they are from, when overseas you say you are from the U.S. and here you say what state you are from.
RetSquid 2 years ago
No constitutionally we are citizens of our states and by being in the union through our states citizens of the union. State citizenship comes first. The states created the corporate feds not the other way around.
Luigi84289 2 years ago
The States did create the Union, and gave it the power it needed to use.
State citizenship really does not matter.
Do you have rights as State citizens that you don't have when just passing thru a State?
Do you know WHY the Unites States is a corporation?
RetSquid 2 years ago
Our Federal Constitutional Republic is composed of 50 Member states. The European Community is composed of 27 Member states.
An "Alaskan" is a National of the Republic of Alaska;
An "Italian" is a National of the Republic of Italy;
A "Californian" is a National of the Republic of California;
A German is a National of the Republic of Germany; etc.
pacinlaw(.)org/pdf/14th_Section_2.php
deprogram(.)us
statesRcountries 2 years ago
"An "Alaskan" is a National of the Republic of Alaska"
Alaska is not a Nation, therefore no one can be a 'National' from Alaska.
RetSquid 2 years ago
Read Blackwells Law Dictionary.
A "state" is "a government" (which is of a country). The USA is a union of states (i.e. governments) under a central government which is distinct from the individual governments of the separate countries of the Union.
This means that the "United States", is an AGENCY of the several states (which are countries). The "United States" is NOT a country!
However, the USA is a REPUBLIC of 50 sovereign countries (under the 10th Amendment).
/watch?v=X6b4YrXayzE
statesRcountries 2 years ago
"state" has different definitions that you are confusing.
State: A body politic, especially one constituting a nation
State: One of the more or less internally autonomous territorial and political units composing a federation under a sovereign government:
RetSquid 2 years ago
Supreme Court: US vs. Valentine 288 F. Supp. 957:
"The only absolute and unqualified right of a United States citizen is to residence within the territorial boundaries of the United States." (which is located in the District of Columbia)
* USC (United States Code) Title 28 § 3002: Definition (15)
* UCC (Uniform Commercial Code) Article 9, § 9-307. [LOCATION OF UNITED STATES] (h)
statesRcountries 2 years ago
Clause 17 limits not the power of Congress, but the power of the states. [T]he word exclusive was employed to eliminate any possibility that the legislative power of Congress over the District [of Columbia] was to be concurrent with that of the ceding states.
District of Columbia v. John R. Thompson Co., 346 U.S. 100, 109, 73 S.Ct. 1007, 1012, 97 L.Ed. 1480 (1953)
RetSquid 2 years ago
TITLE 28 > PART VI > CHAPTER 176 > SUBCHAPTER A > § 3002. Definitions
***As used in this chapter:***
Any other goofy claims?
RetSquid 2 years ago
Sure, theres more than one definition for the 'united States" isn't there my esquire ?
HoRuSHoRiZoN 2 years ago
Yes, there are but in general it is defines as the following:
" Does this term ([United States] designate the whole, or any particular portion of the American empire?
Certainly this question can admit of but one answer.
It is the name given to our great republic, which is composed of States and territories.
Loughborough v. Blake, 18 U.S. (Wheat.) 317, 318-319 (1820), (Chief Justice Marshall).
RetSquid 2 years ago
pacinlaw(.)org/pdf/14th_Sectio n_2(.)php
statesRcountries 2 years ago
And now, as I said before, since virtually each and every one of us has already volunteered to be treated as a 14th Amendment person (primarily by signing a Social Security application form, but through many other contracts as well) we have all literally traded in our sovereign State Citizen status in lieu of voluntary servitude to the federal government seated in the District of Columbia; and are now "subjects" (i.e. slaves) to their plenary power.
DanTheManDavis 4 years ago
However, the 14th Amendment created a whole new class of citizen in 1868. A 14th Amendment person is first subject to the plenary power of the District of Columbia pursuant to A.1 S.8. C.17 And then secondly to the State wherein they reside. So you can see that this citizenship is quite the opposite of what our founding fathers intended.
DanTheManDavis 4 years ago
Of course there was. However, prior to 1868 (and even still today pursuant to Jones v Temmer in 1993 which I will cite in a moment) each individual American's sovereignty was not (and still is not supposed to be) derived from the District of Columbia, but rather from the State wherein one was born. So pursuant to proper jurisprudence, we are first citizens of a State. And then by virtue of our State citizenship, we are also citizens of the rest of the Union as well.
DanTheManDavis 4 years ago
You're Welcome. However, you evidently don't know the real heinous truth behind the 14th Amendment like I thought you did. Independence was declared in America in 1776. Eleven years later in 1787, our Constitution was ratified. The 14th Amendment didn't come into existence (notice I didn't say ratified) until another 81 years after that. Was there no such thing as a "citicen of the United States" prior to 1868 ?
DanTheManDavis 4 years ago
Whereas virtually each and every one of us has already ratified it on an individual basis when a contract was made with the District of Columbia for us to be treated as 14th Amendment persons when a signature of agreement was placed upon a Social Security application form, i.e. contract, either by ourselves or our parents.
DanTheManDavis 4 years ago 2
I am an Anti-14th Amendment activist of sorts here on YouTube. And I very much appreciate your posting of this video. However, it doesn't matter whether it was lawfully ratified or not.
DanTheManDavis 4 years ago
When I came upon this information I was shocked. So I created this account and this video to preset truth that has been removed from textbooks
Thanks for the comments.
polconnet 4 years ago
@polconnet Stockton a new jersey senator also removed his vote when he was ousted from Congress and sent a very nasty letter about what the amendments ratification would mean and the ramifications it would have on America's future generations.
Luigi84289 1 year ago
New Jersey raved about it and it's unconstitutionality and rescinded their forced ratification. Real Patriotic state.
Luigi84289 2 years ago
But enough other States passed it and it became law.
RetSquid 2 years ago
no it was never constitutionally ratified. Even with the forced southern ratifications it was still 3 short.
Luigi84289 2 years ago
30 States approved it and only rejected by Delaware on Feb 8, 1865; by Kentucky on Feb 24, 1865; by New Jersey on Mar 16, 1865; and by Mississippi on Dec 4, 1865.
Stop trying to rewrite history.
RetSquid 2 years ago
@DanTheManDavis Yes it does. It doesn't exist. I'm with you what we must do is show people how everyone's rights are already protected via the body. The only purpose the 14th amendment has ever served has been to increase federal power and create the status of US corporate citizen. Constitutionally only a state can make you a citizen. The Government pushes the necessity of this for protecting "civil rights" but the founders knew all about civil rights that's why they are stressed in the body.
Luigi84289 1 year ago