CHAPTER NINETEEN:
The Purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment
"U.S. Citizens" Have No Inalienable Rights
This [Fourteenth] article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States and its companion the Fifteenth Amendment which relates to the ballot... are considered to be the Negro's charter of liberty....
The great moral values held by the words "equal protection of the laws," "due process of law," and "the right of suffrage" were given to them [the former slaves] by the white man's long travail. They were earned by the white man. They are the heritage of the civilization which he built....
The Negroes in the South in 1868 knew nothing about these things. The defeat of the South on the field of battle freed the Negro from involuntary servitude. But the Fourteenth Amendment, even if lawfully adopted, could not change his nature or make him into a white man with a black skin. The attempt to do this was revolutionary and flew into the face of history....
The real reason for these two amendments rests upon a much cruder foundation. It was twofold: To take revenge on the South through the impoverishment and disfranchisement of its leaders and to build up a permanently strong Republican Party in the South through the use of Negro votes. The Republican leaders were not primarily concerned with the welfare of the Negro, but they welcomed the opportunity to use him for their own ends.(1)
We have seen both the historical and legal background to the so-called Fourteenth Amendment, which was forcibly added to the Constitution by military power rather than by ratification of the States. Drafted by Lincoln-appointed Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Salmon Portland Chase, this amendment was a masterpiece of deception. For the purposes of this chapter, we will focus our discussion mainly on the first clause which reads: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." The "United States" referred to in this amendment was not the several sovereign States "in Congress assembled" under the Constitution, but rather the centralized military despotism created by the Freedmen's Bureau Act and the Civil Rights Act — a fact which the Radicals in Congress were very vocal in declaring and to which all legislation subsequently based on the purported amendment attests. For example, according to the Gold Reserve Act of 1934, "...[T]he term 'United States' means the Government of the United States."(2) Thus, the name of the Union of States has been transferred to the creature of that Union and, in violation of all known rules of grammar, a clearly plural noun is now interpreted as though it were singular. This is also evident in the fact that the word "thereof" in the jurisdiction clause is singular in nature — "Every person born or naturalized in the United States subject to its jurisdiction is a citizen" (emphasis added)(3) — whereas the wording of the jurisdiction clause of the previous Thirteenth Amendment, ratified before Reconstruction, was clearly plural — "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude... shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction" (emphasis added). The difference in phraseology is due to the fact that the Thirteenth Amendment was ratified by the several State legislatures acting in some semblance of a republican capacity under Presidential Reconstruction, whereas the Fourteenth was "ratified" by military satellites of Washington, D.C. set up in the South after the operating State governments had been overthrown.
According to Black's Law Dictionary, "The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, ratified [sic] in 1868, creates or at least recognizes for the first time a citizenship of the United States, as distinct from that of the states."(4) A series of judicial rulings in the 1870s substantiates this assertion. According to the ruling of the California Supreme Court in Van Valkenburg v. Brown:
No white person born within the limits of the United States and subject to their jurisdiction, or born without those limits and subsequently naturalized under their laws, owes his status of citizenship to the recent amendments to the Federal Constitution [the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth].
The purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States was to confer the status of citizenship upon a numerous class of persons domiciled within the limits of the United States who could not be brought within the operation of the naturalization laws because native born, and whose birth, though native, had at the same time left them without the status of citizenship. Such persons were not white persons, but in the main were of African blood, who had been held in slavery in this country, or having themselves never been held in slavery, were the native-born descendants of slaves (emphasis added).(5)
The following year, the U.S. Supreme Court declared in the famous Slaughter House Cases:
The main purpose of the thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth amendments was the freedom of the African race....
The first section of the fourteenth article, to which our attention is more specifically invited, opens with a definition of citizenship — not only citizenship of the United States, but citizenship of the states.... The distinction between citizenship of the United States and citizenship of a state is clearly recognized and established....
Of the privileges and immunities of the citizens of the United States, and, of the privileges and immunities of the citizen of the state, and what they respectively are, we will presently consider; but we wish to state here that it is only the former which are placed by this clause under the protection of the fourteenth article of the federal Constitution, and that the latter, whatever they may be, are not intended to have any additional protection by this paragraph of the amendment.(6)
The ruling in Strauder v. West Virginia was similar: "The fourteenth amendment, although prohibitory in terms, confers a positive immunity or right to the colored race — the right to exemption from unfriendly legislation against them distinctively as colored."(7) Again, in United States v. Susan B. Anthony: "The Fourteenth Amendment creates and defines citizenship of the United States. It had long been contended, and had been held by many learned authorities, and had never been judicially decided to the contrary, that there was no such thing as a citizen of the United States, except by first becoming a citizen of some state.... The rights of citizens of the state, as such, are not under consideration in the Fourteenth Amendment. They stand as they did before the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment and are fully guaranteed by other provisions."(8)
Why were the "rights of citizens of the state... not under consideration" in the Fourteenth Amendment? Simply because the sole purpose of this alleged amendment was to create — or rather to permanently establish — an entirely new political status in order to deal with the infusion into the legal system of a class of people who were separate from, and had no means of access to, the citizenship of the Constitution. Although "the people of [a] State, as successors of its former sovereign, are entitled to all the rights which formerly belonged to the King by his prerogative,"(9) the "privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States... are only such as arise out of the nature and essential character of the national government...."(10) In the case of Tashiro v. Jordan, a California court stated that "citizenship of the United States does not entitle the citizen to privileges and immunities of the citizen of a state, since privileges and immunities of the one are not the same as the other."(11) In Cleveland Raceways, Inc. v. Bowers, the Ohio supreme court declared that "the privileges and immunities protected by the Fourteenth Amendment... are not those fundamental privileges and immunities inherent in state citizenship but only those which owe their existence to the federal government, its national character, its Constitution, or its laws."(12) Even more recently, the U.S. District Court in Colorado stated: "The privileges and immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects very few rights because it neither incorporates any of 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."(13)
Just what are these "rights which relate to state citizenship" — rights which, as we read above, are "fully guaranteed by other provisions" besides the Fourteenth Amendment? They can be none other than those enumerated in the first eight amendments to the Constitution:
The individual may stand upon his constitutional rights as a citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no duty to the State or to his neighbors to divulge his business, or to open his doors to an investigation, so far as it may tend to incriminate him. He owes no such duty to the State, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his life and property. His rights are such as existed by the law of the land long antecedent to the organization of the State, and can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution. Among his rights are a refusal to incriminate himself, and the immunity of him and his property from arrest or seizure except under a warrant of the law. He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights.(14)
It cannot be misconstrued what the courts, from the U.S. Supreme Court down to the State courts, have been openly and consistently stating for well over a century: the freed slaves were never given access to the same inalienable rights which had been enjoyed by White Citizens from the beginning of the American Republic. For example, in the Twining v. New Jersey case, the Supreme Court stated that "an exemption from compulsory self-incrimination is what is described as a fundamental right belonging to all who live under a free government, and incapable of impairment by legislation or judicial decision; it is, so far as the states are concerned, a fundamental right inherent in state citizenship, and is a privilege or immunity of that citizenship only," whereas "immunity from self-incrimination is not, as a fundamental right of national citizenship, included in the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States."(15) The Court went on to declare, "The right of trial by jury in civil cases, guaranteed by the 7th Amendment, and the right to bear arms, guaranteed by the 2d Amendment, have been distinctly held not to be privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States... and in effect the same decision was made in respect of the guaranty against prosecution, except by indictment of a grand jury, contained in the 5th Amendment, and in respect of the right to be confronted with witnesses, contained in the 6th Amendment...."(16)
The first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment does not embrace "the personal rights enumerated in the first eight Amendments, because those rights were not within the meaning of the clause 'privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States.'" In addition, citizens under this Amendment cannot even be certain that they will be guaranteed "due process of law" because "this court has always declined to give a comprehensive definition of it, and has preferred that its full meaning should be gradually ascertained by the process of inclusion and exclusion in the course of the decisions of cases as they arise."(17) In other words, whereas State Citizens, who were once protected by the Constitution and the Common Law, had several centuries of legal history from which to extract a precise definition of "due process of law," the statutory "persons" created by the Fourteenth Amendment are left at the whim of a "make it up as you go" legal system in which a fair trial is whatever the judge decides it will be.
U.S. citizens, who by definition are only residents, not Citizens, of a State, also are denied the most basic of Common Law rights which English and American freemen have enjoyed for hundreds of years. To state that the Fourteenth Amendment created a rightless political status (slavery) would not be an exaggeration. In fact, "The only absolute and unqualified right of a United States citizen is to residence within the territorial boundaries of the United States."(18)
"U.S. Citizenship" is a Legal Fiction
It is beyond dispute that before the Civil Rights Act, there had been no such thing as a citizen of the United States in the sense given in the Fourteenth Amendment. Men were Citizens of their respective States, and then in reference to the Union of the several States, they were Americans. Even the naturalization of aliens was accomplished by the State legislatures or by State courts. No one in the first seventy-five years of the American Republic dreamed that such a creature as a citizen of the U.S. Government would ever come into existence:
By metaphysical refinement, in examining our form of government, it might be correctly said that there is no such thing as a citizen of the United States. But constant usage — arising from convenience, and perhaps, necessity, and dating from the formation of the Confederacy — has given substantial existence to the idea which the term conveys. A citizen of any one of the States of the Union, is held to be, and called a citizen of the United States, although technically and abstractly there is no such thing.
To conceive a citizen of the United States who is not a citizen of some one of the States, is totally foreign to the idea, and inconsistent with the proper construction and common understanding of the expression as used in the Constitution, which must be deduced from its various other provisions. The object then to be obtained, by the exercise of the power of naturalization, was to make citizens of the respective states.(19)
The Constitution nowhere defines the meaning of the word "citizen," either by way of inclusion or exclusion.... [I]t must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution.(20)
Most people confuse the "Citizen of the United States," mentioned in the body of the Constitution with the "citizen of the United States" described in the Fourteenth Amendment, and assume that since similar language is employed, they refer to one and the same "person." However, there is not a single law dictionary, statute or court case that would support the belief that the current "U.S. citizenship" has always been in existence and that the "person" found within this martial venue enjoys the same political status as a Citizen of one of the several States. In light of the fact that the general Government was the creation of the sovereign people of the several States, it would be impossible for a legal creation of the creation to ever be truly elevated to an equality with the creator.
According to the U.S. Supreme Court, "An unconstitutional act is not a law. It confers no rights. It imposes no duties. It affords no protection. It creates no office. It is in legal contemplation as inoperative as though it had never been passed. Therefore an unconstitutional act purporting to create an office gives no validity to the acts of a person acting under color of its authority."(21) It could also be asserted that neither does an unconstitutional act create a citizenship. If the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which was, without a doubt, completely unconstitutional, "confers no rights... imposes no duties... affords no protection... [and] creates no office," what exactly then was "created or at least recognized for the first time" by its offspring, the Fourteenth Amendment? Simply put, the purported amendment did nothing more than establish a taxable franchise of the de facto military corporation which is now seated in the District of Columbia — a legal fiction which possesses no real substance in law but which nevertheless becomes "paramount and dominant" over whatever other political status may be claimed by the individual under its jurisdiction.(22) The reader should note the following definitions:
Legal fiction. Assumption of fact made by court as basis for deciding a legal question. A situation contrived by the law to permit a court to dispose of a matter....(23)
Fictio.... In Roman law, a fiction; and assumption or supposition of the law. Such was properly a term of pleading, and signified a false averment on the part of the plaintiff which the defendant was not allowed to traverse; as that the plaintiff was a Roman citizen, when in truth he was a foreigner. The object of the fiction was to give the court jurisdiction.(24)
Fictitious. Founded on a fiction; having the character of a fiction; pretended; counterfeit. Feigned, imaginary, not real, false, not genuine, nonexistent. Arbitrarily invented and set up, to accomplish an ulterior object.(25)
In his veto of the Civil Rights bill, Andrew Johnson perceived the "ulterior object" of the creation of a statutory "Federal citizenship" to be to "sap and destroy our federative system of limited powers and break down the barriers which preserve the rights of the States" and to take "another step, or rather stride, toward centralization and the concentration of all legislative powers in the National Government."(26) That Johnson was correct in his assessment of the situation was substantiated by James G. Blaine, who declared that the Reconstruction legislation "heartily recognized the supreme sovereignty of the National Government as having been indisputably established by the overthrow of the Rebellion which was undertaken to confirm the adverse theory of State-rights."(27) Blaine further remarked, "As the vicious theory of State-rights had been constantly at enmity with the true spirit of Nationality, the Organic Law of the Republic should be so amended that no standing-room for th[at] heresy would be left."(28) Here we have an open admission from a Republican member of Congress not only that the creation of "U.S. citizenship" by the Civil Rights Act was intended to be an assault on the "Organic Law of the Republic" — the Constitution — but that it had been the South, not the North, which had fought in the late war to confirm the principles set forth in that document, particularly in the Tenth Amendment. Clearly, Blaine and his cohorts were the true perpetrators of "rebellion," not the people of the Southern States.
The Fourteenth Amendment is Anti-Republican
Since the Fourteenth Amendment is a product of the Republican party, it may sound strange, even contradictory, to label it "anti-republican." However, the contradiction lies instead with the political faction which assumed the name "Republican" in 1854 when, in fact, its leading members both advocated and actually accomplished an overthrow of the principles of true republicanism in America. In the Declaration of Independence, we read that a free people have both the right and the duty to alter and even to abolish an oppressive government 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." Governments thus "deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed" are said to be republican and are the only form of government allowed by the Constitution: "The Union is an association of the people of republics; its preservation is calculated to depend on the preservation of those republics. The people of each pledge themselves to preserve that form of government in all. Thus each becomes responsible to the rest, that no other form of government shall prevail in it, and all are bound to preserve it in every one."(29)
In sharp contrast, as the U.S. Supreme Court declared in 1884, the "person" defined in the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment "is not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject" (emphasis added).(30) By definition, a subject is "one that owes allegiance to a sovereign and is governed by his laws."(31) Furthermore, subjection is the "obligation of one or more persons to act at the discretion or according to the judgment and will of others" and "the term is little used, in this sense, in countries enjoying a republican form of government."(32) Since the primary characteristic of a State, "in the ordinary sense of the Constitution," is "a political community of free citizens,"(33) there can be no doubt that a body politic formed by statutory "persons" who are in complete subjection to the U.S. Government cannot be a true State, and certainly cannot be republican in form as required by the Constitution. Though it may bear the name of "State," such an entity would be more properly designated as a territory, or an administrative subdivision, of the centralized Government in Washington, D.C. Those who vote in the elections of such a "State" are merely voicing their opinion regarding Government policy, and their will may be, and, in fact, often is, overturned by the sovereign will of their master.
According to one authoritative source, "The Federal Civil Rights Act is in derogation of the common law and must be strictly construed."(34) This, of course, would also apply to everything proceeding from the Civil Rights Act, including the Fourteenth Amendment. Clearly, to be "in derogation of the common law" is to be in derogation of the Constitution, which is firmly rooted in the Common Law. "U.S. citizenship" in this context is therefore not really citizenship at all — at least not in the constitutional sense of the term — but is instead a consensual contract(35) which originates outside of the Constitution and which establishes the relationship of master and slave (sovereign and subject) between the contracting parties; as such, it cannot lawfully be attached to any free people at the mere whim of either the U.S. Government or any of its countless agencies.(36) To attempt to enlarge the scope of the Civil Rights Act beyond its original intent to secure civil rights to "low and lawless forms of humanity"(37) — the Negro freedmen — would amount to levying a war of annihilation against the several States by politically murdering their Citizens. This, in the clear language of Article III, Section 3, Clause 1 of the Constitution, would be treason and yet thousands of Americans every year acquiesce in this colossal crime when they declare themselves to be "completely subject" to an illegitimate Government by registering to vote, or when they accept any of the other benefits which are held out as enticements for them to abandon their birthright.
The Continuing Effects of Reconstruction
Having examined the meaning behind the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment, let us now focus on the fifth and last section which reads: "The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article." This section, which also appears in the Thirteenth and Fifteenth Amendments, escapes the notice of most people, but it is nevertheless pregnant with meaning and is therefore of monumental importance in understanding the intent of the authors of the amendment. When one reads Article I, Section 8, Clause 18 of the Constitution, it will be seen that Congress was already given all the legislative authority needed "to make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or officer thereof." There was no need whatsoever for an additional empowerment clause to be added to the Fourteenth Amendment unless additional power was being claimed by Congress outside of the Constitution. Furthermore, since the Constitution was intended to be the "supreme Law of the Land," the powers claimed under this and other Reconstruction amendments must have arisen from a source other than the organic law. We have already seen that this source was military necessity, or martial law.
Unfortunately, the revolutionary nature of the Fourteenth Amendment goes beyond the establishment of a permanent venue of martial law. This amendment also took a giant step toward the abolition of the independent judicial system established under Article III of the Constitution. This attack on the Judicial Branch of the Government is found in the words "appropriate legislation" which precluded judicial review of any law passed by Congress in relation to the freedmen. This phrase "was added out of abundant caution. It authorizes congress to select, from time to time, the means that might be deemed appropriate to the end. It employs a phrase which had been enlightened by well-considered judicial application. Any exercise of legislative power within its limits involves a legislative [political], and not a judicial question."(38) This explains why "the federal courts actually refuse to hear argument on the invalidity of the 14th Amendment."(39) Thus was set up within this country a legal situation never for a moment imagined by the founders — the Legislative Branch as its own judge and a virtually impotent Judicial Branch unable to gainsay any action of Congress claimed to be "appropriate" to force and perpetuate Radical Reconstruction on the States.
In his book The Era of Reconstruction 1865-1877, Kenneth M. Stampp wrote:
Radical idealism was in part responsible for two of the most momentous enactments of the reconstruction years: the Fourteenth Amendment to the federal Constitution which gave Negroes citizenship and promised them equal protection of the laws, and the Fifteenth Amendment which gave them the right to vote. The fact that these amendments could not have been adopted under any other circumstances, or at any other time, before or since, may suggest the crucial importance of the reconstruction era in American history. Indeed, without radical reconstruction, it would be impossible to this day for the federal government to protect Negroes from legal and political discrimination.(40)
What were the circumstances under which the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments were adopted? Again, it was "'a state of war' after flagrant war has ceased" when "[m]ilitary government may legally be continued." It was a time when the States were said to have "committed suicide, so that as states they cease to exist, leaving their whole jurisdiction open to the occupation of the United States under the Constitution." It was a time when the States had been reduced "to the condition of territories" and the disenfranchised Citizens thereof had been reduced "to abject subjection to the sway of the government." Finally, it was "a grant of power to military authority, over civil rights and citizens, in time of peace" and "a new jurisdiction, never granted before, by which, in certain particulars and for certain purposes, the established principle that the military shall be subordinate to the civil authority is reversed." Consequently, the continued enforcement of the provisions of the Reconstruction amendments is a clear and open declaration of war against the American people and serves to put them on notice that they remain under martial law, or at least its more mild form of martial rule, to this day. Without this state of affairs, "it would be impossible... for the federal government to protect Negroes from legal and political discrimination."
It has been admitted that "the revolutionary Fourteenth Amendment... still functions as an instrument of revolution."(41) Indeed, the "new jurisdiction" established by this bogus amendment is antithetical to the republican form of government which the federal Government is bound to guarantee to the several States of the Union. However, if the States, as lawfully constituted bodies politic, have been destroyed by eliminating their Citizens and repopulating their respective territories with alien residents, then the Union established by our forefathers also does not exist and the Government, no longer having any duties to the States to perform, is freed from all constitutional restraints which it does not impose upon itself. The clay has not only said to the potter, "What hast thou done?" but has also risen in revolt and declared itself sovereign over its master:
They [the Radical Republicans during Reconstruction] knew what they intended by the vague terms of section one of the Amendment. They knew that it could be interpreted so as to extend far beyond the negro race question. They desired to nationalize all civil rights, to make the Federal power supreme, and to bring the private life of every citizen directly under the eye of Congress.... This result was to be obtained by disenfranchising the whites and enfranchising the blacks.... It meant the death knell of the doctrine of State's rights — the ultimate nationalization of all civil rights and the consequent abolition of State control over the private rights and duties of the individual. It meant the passing over of the police power of the State, into the police power of the national government, thereby giving Congress undefined and unlimited powers whereby it would be enabled to enter fields of legislation from which hitherto it had been barred....
[The Fourteenth Amendment] is a set-back to proper government. This operation of the Fourteenth Amendment runs counter to the ideals expressed in the Preamble to the Constitution itself. It does anything but promote domestic tranquility....
The same force in the Republican Party which secured the adoption of the Amendment has also given us its ideal of the purpose and scope of that constitutional measure by the laws thereunder enacted. They meant to change the form of the American Commonwealth. The States were to exist only in name. Their legislatures and their courts were to be reduced to impotency. The citizens of the States were now to live directly under the surveillance of the Federal Government, looking to it for protection in his private affairs and fearing its avenging power should he transgress the least of its commandments....
No longer was the National Government to be one of delegated powers, and no part of the sovereign power was to be held any longer by the States. Section one of the Fourteenth Amendment was intended ultimately to create out of the former Union one centralized consolidated government with the supreme power vested in the Federal authorities in Washington. Such was the ideal of the Radicals....(42)
The claim that the Fourteenth Amendment elevated the Blacks to social and political equality with the Whites is a farce. Instead, what has happened over time is that both Whites and Blacks have been equally subjugated beneath the heel of an unlimited and unaccountable military despotism. There is an agenda behind the "politically correct" dogma propagated by the Government-controlled media and by the NAACP and other Government-funded race-agitating groups — an agenda of deception and cover-up. The traditional heritage, culture, and symbols of the old South are being attacked with an unprecedented ferocity today because they are powerful reminders of the principles upon which true liberty in this country was founded, the most important of which is the right of a people to govern themselves. Ignorance of history has been the political undoing of the American people, who have surrendered the freedoms purchased with the blood of their forefathers in favor of a form of martial slavery more oppressive than anything that allegedly existed in the antebellum South. The second Reconstruction of the Twenty-First Century may very well accomplish what the first Reconstruction of the Nineteenth Century merely began — the permanent erasure of the memory of free republican government from the American mind.
Endnotes
1. Charles Wallace Collins, Whither Solid South? A Study in Politics and Race Relations (New Orleans, Louisiana: Pelican Publishing Company, 1947), pages 94-96.
2. Gold Reserve Act (1934), Chapter 6, Section 15.
3. Title 26, Code of Federal Regulations, Section 1.1-1(c), "Who is a citizen."
4. Black's Law Dictionary (Sixth Edition), page 657.
5. Van Valkenburg v. Brown (1872), 43 Cal. 43, 47.
6. Slaughter House Cases (1873), 83 U.S. 36, 16 Wall. 36, 21 L.Ed. 394.
7. Strauder v. West Virginia (1879), 100 U.S. 303, 35 L.Ed. 664.
8. United States v. Susan B. Anthony (1873), 24 Fed. Cas. 829.
9. Lansing v. Smith (1829), 21 D. 89, 4 Wend. 9. This political sovereignty was enjoyed by the people in their collective capacity, not as individuals. There is not now, nor ever has been, such a thing as "individual sovereignty," as claimed by many in the so-called Patriot movement. As a member of society, a White American male was a co-tenant in the sovereignty of his State; as an individual, however, he was a subject of that sovereignty.
10. Twining v. New Jersey (1908), 211 U.S. 78, 53 L.Ed. 97. It should be kept in mind that there was no "national government" prior to 1861, but a general (federal) Government of the several United States.
11. K. Tashiro et. al. v. Jordan, Secretary of State, et. al. (1927) 256 Cal. 545.
12. Cleveland Raceways, Inc. v. Bowers (Ohio, 1958), 163 N.E. 2d 73.
13. Jones v. Temmer (U.S. District Court, Colorado, 1993), 829 F.Supp. 1226.
14. Hale v. Hankel (1906), 201 U.S. 43, 74.
15. Twining v. New Jersey, 211 U.S. 78, 97.
16. Op. cit., 98-99; citing Walker v. Sauvinet, 92 U.S. 90 , 23 L. ed. 678; Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 , 29 L. ed. 615, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 580; Hurtado v. California, 110 U.S. 516 , 28 L. ed. 232, 4 Sup. Ct. Rep. 111, 292; West v. Louisiana, 191 U.S. 258 , 48 L. ed. 965, 24 Sup. Ct. Rep. 650.
17. Ibid.
18. U.S. v. Valentine, 288 F.Supp. 957.
19. Ex parte Knowles (1855), 5 Cal. 300, 302.
20. United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), 169 U.S. 654.
21. Norton v. Shelby County (1886), 6 S.Ct. 1121.
22. Reference: Colgate v. Harvey (1935), 296 U.S. 404, 427; 80 L.Ed. 299.
23. Black's Law Dictionary (Sixth Edition), page 894.
24. Op. cit., page 623.
25. Op. cit., page 624.
26. Johnson, in Richardson, Messages and Papers of the Presidents, Volume VIII, page 3611.
27. Blaine, Twenty Years of Congress, Volume II, page 300.
28. Blaine, op. cit., page 303.
29. Rawle, View of the Constitution, page 295.
30. Elk v. Wilkins (1884) 112 U.S. 94.
31. Black's Law Dictionary (Sixth Edition), page 1425.
32. Ibid.
33. State of Texas v. White (1868), 74 U.S. 700.
34. Francis Rawle (editor), Bouvier's Law Dictionary (Kansas City, Missouri: Vernon Law Book Company, 1914), Volume I, page 500.
35. "Consensual contracts are such as are founded upon and completed by the mere agreement of the contracting parties, without any external formality or symbolic act to fix the obligation" (Black's Law Dictionary [Sixth Edition], page 323). Mere acquiescence is sufficient for such a contract to impose duties, for "longa patientia trahitur ad consensum. Long sufferance is construed as consent" (op. cit., page 942).
36. "Beneficium invito non datur. A privilege or benefit is not granted against one's will" (op. cit., page 157).
37. State of Arkansas v. Kansas & T. Coal Co., 96 F. 353.
38. United States v. Rhodes (1998), 27 Fed.Cas. 785, 793.
39. Perez, "The Unconstitutionality of the Fourteenth Amendment," page 15646.
40. Kenneth M. Stampp, The Era of Reconstruction, 1865-1877 (New York: Random House, 1965), pages 12-13.
41. Henry Steele Commager and Richard B. Morris, "Editors' Introduction" in Foner, Reconstruction, page xvii.
42. Charles Wallace Collins, The Fourteenth Amendment and the States (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1912), pages 10-11, 20, 45-46, 159, 161.
|
