The 41st Amendment
As our rights are already protected in word by the “Bill of Rights” and are by necessity an inalienable gift from God which CANNOT be granted by men with any Act or statute, The “Civil Rights Act of 1964” is Hereby repealed.
Congress shall make no law in regard to this Article.
Here's a REALITY CHECK, along with a giant rabbit hole for you to investigate on your own. You can decide for yourself, if we do, in fact, have a Constitution, a Bill of Rights, a Democracy, a Republic, or if we are only a Communist & "God-Fearing" nation, which makes the tasks of our Bankster Overlords much easier! Occupations of nations are easier when people have already capitulated, and conceded their fates to a higher power. The powers of Israel's royal families, and the Vatican, may well be upon you!!
This may well make the debate over the XIV Amendment moot!
Yes! we often as a people duck and hide as things get worse and God will listen not to those who stick their heads in the ground. But when one who needs answers read the very prepared text of the founders and the bible prayer can make those people more astute to their needs. But as time and history has shewn man once acclimated to welfare just cant reverse their direction till it is too late.
that's why I believe that in a whole we as a nation are very much in trouble but there will be enclaves of people who will learn to change.
Here’s a case of Government ran amok. The Civil Rights Act hinges on Federal citizenship. Now which was this Nation designed for? The Bill of Rights through State citizenship which the 14th negated as the 14th Amendment citizen has privileges not rights? Or was the Constitution changed to accept Federal power over the citizen? As this tyranny forming knew this and understood that State Citizenship held the power of the Bill of Rights while the 14th Amendment citizen did not have that. So with federal citizenship, state Citizenship ended.
Go to trial in any State; they will try you as an alien because you are a federal citizen.You must enact your federal citizenship in court, now you fall under your federal Government.
Sounds convoluted? It is and it’s on purpose.
Gail, I don't see the Fed treating the people fairly now. I see redistribution of wealth on every hand. The TARP had the language highlighted that specified that the money was TARGETED AND TEMPORARY. Well, just the favored folks were targeted.
The treatment of the former slaves at the conclusion of the Civil War was immoral and unjust. There are times when the states' governments need to step in an halt the abuse of power by the Federal Government and their are times when the Federal government needs to step in and prevent the abuse of power by the States.
When anyone's God given rights are violated, the person responsible should be held accountable. Violating a black man's right is nor more repugnant than violating anyone else's rights. Making it unlawful for a white man to discriminate against a black man is no different than the reverse.
The government does not have a right to deprive an individual of their rights but they can impose limitations and restrictions on corporations. Any business that is operating as a corporation is subject to the rules and regulations of the government which authorizes creation of corporations.
In my opinion the government not only has a right but a responsibility to regulate and punish the behavior of corporations, but do not individuals. If one individual harms another he/she should be punished. The race, religion or color of the victim should not even be taken into consideration.
In studying the Hillsdale College Constitution course 201 about the Progressive movement, it gave me some of the answers I needed to know about what went wrong with our Constitutional Republic.
Essentially, the 17th Amendment threw out the balance of power by taking away the selection of the Senators by the states' respective legislatures to being elected by the people. Therefore, Senators had to buy our votes to stay in office which changed their perspective on how they should vote. Thus began the structural demise of our Constitution.
The 17th amendment isn't enough to cause what has happened to us. You have to go much farther back to the unconstitutional First Bank of the United States to understand what happened. When Hamilton proposed it, Washington wasn't sure if it was Constitutional, so he asked his Attorney General, his Secretary of State, his Secretary of War and Secretary of the Treasury, (then his entire cabinet). All but his Secretary of the Treasury (Hamilton) said that it was unconstitutional.
To understand why Washington signed the bill into law, you have to understand how mentally slow Washington was. He rejected three of his four cabinet members' firm conclusions that demonstrated why it was unconstitutional, and he accepted his close friend Hamilton's view, that said:
1) Necessary doesn't mean necessary.
2) Implied powers are the same as enumerated powers.
3) Once the Constitution was ratified, it ceased to be our founding document. The Constitution of our government is its laws (just as your constitution is your flesh and blood). Because the government is a sovereign government, no one (not even the people) can tell it what it can do.
Hamilton also loved Judicial Review that the Constitution did not provide for, and given Article I, prevented. This allowed the court to throw out the constitution.
Beginning with Marbury v. Madison, and continuing on to Mc Culloch v Maryland, which formally dismissed the Declaration of Independence, the written Constitution, and the Bill of Rights, we became the enemy of the State.
The Court ruled that the 10th Amendment which says the government has no power unless granted it by the Constitution, means that government has every power unless specifically denied it by the Constitution. Even if denied, government can assume any power it wants using implied powers and necessary powers - and necessary doesn't have to mean necessary.
We cannot fix what is wrong with American until people have a better handle on American history (we have been lied to). Learning about American history from Christian sources when powerful Christian forces have been involved in lying to you about what is wrong and how to fix it makes no sense. To learn about American History, you have to read original documents.
Once you have read the original documents, the solution to America's problems becomes self-evident. Yes, it means honoring the Constitution, but for as long as people believe that the Constitution can have its meaning changed from day to day or generation to generation, we will never get there. The same can be said about Christianity. For as long as Christians say that Paul's teaching is more valid than Jesus' teachings, Christians will continue to fight for that which they are really against, and wonder what's wrong.
'3) Once the Constitution was ratified, it ceased to be our founding document. The Constitution of our government is its laws (just as your constitution is your flesh and blood). Because the government is a sovereign government, no one (not even the people) can tell it what it can do.'
You may want to rethink this for there is a document made befiore the Constitution which has never changed and can direct the will of the people and I quote:
" whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."
This nation had the ability from the first to allow the people to reinvest their efforts into a realignment whether we d it or not is totally on our shoulders for as it say its our duty and in that duty is the enactment of people coming together to oppose that Government whether by election or the 2nd amendment.
Then you will see a coalescing of different minds who will take on this responsibility and in that time God will be very much a part of their decision to act and so::
"for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor"
I see this today> individuals swallowing their differences looking for answers, and the help lies on this dusty paper whos words are rarely read.
The guise of "living document" is what gives the courts complete license to consider the changing dynamic of the Constitution. Thus the courts can say one thing about a law one day and another thing the next day.
The Civil Rights Act should not have been necessary, but it WAS, much the same as "Natural Born Citizen,"(N.B.C.). It was not defined clearly enough when written. The Supreme Court tried to resolve the N.B.C. issue in later years, most notably in Minor vs Happersett in 1875. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 clarified that: discrimination based on race, color, etc is unacceptable in this country. Yes, it was needed because discrimination based on race, color, etc DID exist in 1964. It made things better.
This country was founded on Judeo-Christian religious principles. Claiming otherwise doesn't change that. The Bill of Rights states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;…."
That means it cannot ESTABLISH a government religion or ban any religion in this country. Even Islam and Voo-Doo is protected! It does NOT mean the government must reject religion and not consider religious principles in its governing. "Thou shall not kill", isn't an objectionable view. References to Judeo-Christian beliefs have been embedded throughout our development as a country, and supporting such beliefs does NOT mean the government approves of the Roman Catholic Church over any other.
The argument can be made that since the rights in the Bill of Rights are an "inalienable gift from God," a second law to reaffirm them is not necessary, but arguing against the mention of God is inconsistent with our history and the beliefs of most Americans. I would call that the stance of Atheists, who believe in a "religion" of DIS-belief.
GOD BLESS AMERICA!!
Your grasp of American history is filled with gaps.
Government shall pass no law respecting an institution of religion. So let's honor it. No tax deductions for church donations. No federal laws granting huge housing allowances to ministers and exemption from self-employment taxes (FICA and SUTA) and payroll (FICA) taxes.
You have not read the writings on what Madison meant when he spoke of religious freedom. In his memorial to the State of Virginia, he was clear that religion meant freedom of conscience, as most States’ constitutions granted. Jefferson agreed. Even Adams, a Christian, agreed. The Treaty of Tripoli, instigated by Washington, and signed into law by Adams with 100% approval by the senate specifically says that in no way was the United States conceived as a Christian nation.
The Constitution of the State of NY even prohibited clergy from serving in government, in stated recognition of the atrocities that had been and were still taking place in Christendom. The witch burnings were just 100 years before. The Inquisition in Spain was ongoing. The last victim had not yet been garroted. Many were afraid of “The Church” by the time the national government was established.
States were one thing, but the 14th Amendment ended that.