Contrary to popular belief the Constitution for the united States is not a contract. It is a rule book written to limit the authority of the government in order to protect the lives, liberty and property of the  people.

A contract is an agreement that creates an obligation to the participating parties abide by the mutually agreed upon terms.

The Constitution was written to govern the government not the people. It is the responsibility of government to obey the rules and it is our responsibility to enforce them.

If we don't hold our government officials accountable they have no incentive to honor their oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution. The Constitution can not  protect us, if we  don't defend it.

Unfortunately when our Congressional Representatives violate the rules instead of being punished, they are rewarded by the Wall Street bankers and corporations who fund their campaigns.

We can not expect our elected officials to do their job, if we fail to do our job. We must either submit to tyranny or take responsibility. Giving Congress access to our credit cards is like giving the keys to your liquor cabinet to a thirsty alcoholic.

We the people elect the representatives, but they take their marching orders from the financial elite. We were supposed to be the employer and the government officials were to be our employees.

For our government to function properly, we must educate ourselves on the principles of individual liberty and personal responsibility and hold our elected officials accountable.

If we don't govern our government, our government will become our masters and we will become their servants. The only way we can have a government of, by and for the people is for each of us to take responsibility to hold our elected officials accountable.

Representatives who violate the Constitution should be indicted and prosecuted and if found guilty they should be sent to prison for the rest of their lives.

The Constitution is not a contract, it is the Supreme Law of the land and it is the responsibility of the people to enforce it.

Views: 757

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

If the 14th Amendment was not properly ratified it is unconstitutional and null and void!

Correct, but it is now entrenched by being considered as ratified. 

While I agree that the 14th was adopted and not properly ratified, today it is law under the 'latches' doctrine. It has been unchallenged for so long that it has passed the statute of limitations.

It is important to understand that it has no constitutional impact upon state-only citizens what so ever. Their rights are suppose to be secured by their state constitution.

There has been a communist ideological group in charge of all legislative bodies and all trial courts and thus the gov itself for many decades that has an official policy of imposing 14th status upon everyone without regard for constitutional limitations and that is the problem everyone is unknowingly complaining about.

In other words, these people are engaged in a silent war with all state-only citizens, which at this time are all state-born whites.

While this is a high crime, if most people understood what living by the constitutions as per original intent, most would still be very unhappy, but that is a totally different topic.

There is no authorization inside the constitution that permits latches or any other statute or court action to alter the actual words and Articles of the document.

Any such changes are usurpation and are null and void upon presentation therefor no legal foundation.

Latches does not apply to a constitution, nor does a statute of limitations.

Just plain wrong. The 14th did not address Barron.

True. Under the 14th the rules are different. Suddenly the limitations stated in Barron no longer exist due to the 14th being part of the federal constitution.

2nd incorporation: Writing for the majority, Samuel A. Alito, Jr., argued on the basis of Heller that the Second Amendment is incorporated—i.e., that it should be selectively incorporated as applicable to the states through the due process clause of the 14th.

If you read Heller, the court agreed with the selective incorporation also. What the court stated was that if the individual could meet the requirements set forth under fed statute to qualify to own a firearm, a denial of that civil right was a taking without due process.

So, if the fed gov decides to require a tax stamp to own each gun and then refuses to issue such stamps, it becomes a felony to own a gun.

Thus at this time, for 14th citizens, owing a firearm is a civil right only and it can be terminated at any time.

It is true that the 14th did not address Barron, however, the 14th changed the rules in regard to all non-whites in the states. Suddenly they had citizenship and it was federal.  Thus the fed gov could come into the states to protect their fed constitutional rights and later the civil / legal rights they were granted.

As for laches doctrine: I do not see why it would not apply to the 14th.  The doctrine of laches is based on the maxim that "equity aids the vigilant and not those who slumber on their rights." (Black's Law Dictionary). The outcome is that a legal right or claim will not be enforced or allowed if a long delay in asserting the right or claim has prejudiced the adverse party.

It has been used as law for 150 years and as imposed, it effects the lives of all Americans. Absent the 14th, non-whites would again find themselves without citizenship and they would have no civil rights either because they would not be under fed protection.

Also, the fed gov would have absolutely no pretense of authority to impose its legislation in the states.

Both non-whites and the United States would be adversely effected in a very huge way.

I think laches applies to the 14th.

The Privileges and Immunities Clause made the rights in the Bill of Rights "federal questions" which conferred jurisdiction on federal courts. That is why constitutionalists are so keen on getting it recognized as originally understood. See

A constitutional amendment will not in general explicitly overturn a court decision. It will change the theory of the overturned decision.

The fed bill of rights, being part of the fed constitution and therefore not directly applicable to the states have naturally always been a fed issue.  So, a citizen of a territory destined to become a state would have filed in an Art 4 court on a claimed violation of a right listed in the fed bill of rights.

While the 14th does not directly incorporate any part of the bill of rights, it is recognized that congress has extended some aspects of the bill of rights as civil rights and some are considered so fundamental that the courts have agreed they are incorporated into the privileges and immunities clause.

So, the fed bill of right have always been strictly a fed jurisdiction issue and the limited right mentioned above are also.

Since the 14th arises under Art 4 and the power of congress over conquered people no longer in rebellion are under Art 4, it seems to me that they would all have the same constitutionally secured rights - absent any form of American citizenship.


© 2020   Created by Online Professor.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service