America First Legal Urges U.S. Supreme Court to Restore Original Meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment in Brief Filed on Behalf of...
America First Legal (AFL), in partnership with Boyden Gray PLLC, has filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Supreme Court on behalf of eighteen members of the House Judiciary Committee—led by Chairman Jim Jordan—urging the […]
That's such a good idea they should go back to the original intent on the entire Bill of Rights. The meaning of a lot of the amendments has been diluted over time.
I agree in a way (that we need to reform the Bill of Rights), and completely disagree in another. You seem to assume that the original intent was good as it was. I could go through all the flaws I've found, but since it is relevant to the 14th, I'll focus on just this one:
It seems that there are some people here that don't understand what that means. I can understand that. The legal magicians use many "addendums" and obfuscations to cast their spell, so I'll "spell" it out for you.
At the time of this amendment, we had just gone through the Civil War. We were massively indebt. Who were we indebted to? Quite a few people actually, but most importantly, we were indebted to the Banksters (specifically Rothschild). We are STILL indebt to that same entity. We never got out of that debt. In fact, we were so indebted at the time of this amendment, it was almost impossible to get out of it.
The Civil War was paid for by Rothschild on both sides (from before it started actually). The the legal phrasing of the 14th amendment ensures that we can't default on a debt, thus ensuring that all of the people of the United States (not the government AKA the corporate entity, but the people) could not ever be free (legally) from that obligation. These debts, through the 14th Amendment, were a legally binding contract between the debtors (all of the people of the United States) and the lenders (the various bankers (also people), but ultimately the Rothschilds).
So who owns the debt? The usurers (Banksters).
What is the contract that the Banksters own because of the 14th Amendment? An indenture, or bond. (Note: a bond is a security, the indenture is the legal framework that details how the bond operates.) This indenture is a legally binding contract between people (about 300+Million people between a few Bond holders) that can never be abolished. What do you call an indenture that you inherit from your parents that you can't ever pay off?
We call that slavery. You are legally owned.
Through the 14th Amendment, We The People are legally indentured for all generations to the Banksters. Through the Civil War, that debt was so massive, we couldn't reasonably pay it off. Through the creation of the Federal Reserve, that indenture went from "basically impossible to pay it off" to actually impossible to pay it off. (Because of the legal contract between the Fed and the US Govt using a nice pretty legal usury system, there isn't enough money in the world to pay it off).
Many people think these problems started in 1913. In truth, it started around 1861.
(It really started earlier than that, but to elaborate I'd have to go through Lincoln; people think he was "a good guy"... To disillusion people of some of the facts bout Lincoln is not something I will go into at this time.)
I'm not a fan of Lincoln either. There were numerous options to fix the unfair tariffs on southern agricultural commerce. His solution was to have us kill each other.
We also need to repeal the 17 amendment. The states no longer have any representation. And they were meant to be a critical check on the popular house.
If a person in NC doesn't have 'standing' in the case of election fraud in AZ in a general election in which 'electors' (again, elected by popular vote, or in this case, by electronic and or mail in ballot fraud), in which ill-gotten, fraudulent electors win the state, then STATES SHOULD NOT HAVE ANY SAY in federal matters.
Either we the people have universal federal election 'standing' in courts, or neither do the states.
That's a great letter to read. It gave me a better foundation to use in arguments, beyond the simple wording of the text. Thanks for posting this.
If anyone born on US soil is an automatic citizen, why did Congress need to pass the Snyder Act in 1924 to give American Indians citizenship?
Even those born outside reservation boundaries were denied citizenship.
You made me look it up... "The act was partly motivated by recognition of Native American contributions during World War I, where many served in the U.S. military despite lacking citizenship. It also reflected progressive efforts to assimilate Native Americans into mainstream American society, though this was controversial among tribes."
I didn't know that! You need submit an amicus brief too!
Even the original framers of the Amendment, on the record, explained their intent. What part of that explanation is not understood? Being born here is not an automatic right of citizenship.
Careful, once you advocate changing the Constitution to eliminate or narrow the Fourteenth Amendment, you concede the same move can be used against the Second.
Opponents will argue the Second was designed for a country without a permanent standing army and no longer serves its original function.
You can’t treat the Constitution as a monolith for the Second while calling for the eradication or overhaul of other amendments. One rule has to govern all of them. No double standards.
Your point is moot because they already do that.
Do you not remember the harping on about "well regulated militia"?
By that do you mean that liberals already call for the 2nd Amendment to be eliminated or severely changed? Yes, I'm aware of that.
But if the Supreme Court declares that the 14th Amendment can be changed or eradicated because it no longer applies to modern day society, then that sets a clear precedent for the Supreme Court to debate the 2nd Amendment as well.
The Supreme Court has historically been hesitant to make sweeping changes to the Amendments. But if they actually start debating changing or eliminating the 14th Amendment, then it opens the flood gate on others.
And it would be the exact same argument. That the conditions that lead our Fore fathers to create the Amendments are no longer applicable to modern day life, and are no longer relevant.
I find it weird that so many people don't understand this.
Do you really not see how you're arguing out of both sides of your mouth?
Do you genuinely not understand that the Supreme Court doesn't get to just modify the Constitution, they are merely creating interpretations and applying said interpretations to the lower "categories" of law made by the Federal and State govts?
Precedent has always been a fickle beast, because these interpretations have never been permanent binding agreements for all future SCs to follow. To argue against turning precedent ever because it might be weaponized against us is fucking ludicrous to the highest order.
To argue otherwise is to say Blacks are subhuman non-citizens (Scott V Sandford) that we are at permanent liberty to round up forever (Korematsu V US) whilest the government can demand you buy slave grown cotton or be ruined by fines for "affecting interstate commerce" (Wickard V Filburn).
Because remember, by your own logic of "never change precedent or you might get gun grabbed in the future", if you don't agree with all that, "shall not be infringed" becomes "unless you are a domestic abuser" (Rahimi V US) or if "it's not used by the military" (US V Miller), or "it's not a common use item" (Columbia V Heller). Oh wait, IT ALREADY FUCKING HAPPENS
"Shall not be infringed"
Seems pretty clear to me.
Also where have you been living if you don't think they've infringed and narrowed the fuck out of the 2nd amendment already lol
"Shall not be infringed" isn't some magic phrase that can prevent the Amendment from being changed, using the same argument being presented here that the original conditions no longer apply.
You just acknowledged that "shall not be infringed" is already being violated, so obviously that phrase alone isn't enough to protect the 2nd Amendment.
Except it was supposed to be. It was the only amendment that explicitly said don't fucking change a fucking thing. Don't fucking infringe a thing.
Then skip forward awhile and you have democrats who can't read but also hate America.
Crime-wise America was a lot safer when everyone carried on their hip or across their back. But then again a bunch of younger adults were shot for just being smartasses instead of actually “harming” anyone because some short-fuse asshole got his feeewings hurt (not including the crimes of the “Wild West”). So in came all the “control” laws by States.
An armed society, is a polite society.
Nope. Britain wanted the colonists' guns. See
https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2015/08/12/how-the-british-gun-control-program-precipitated-the-american-revolution/
Yeah, and we're no longer at war with the British, so that no longer is a factor in why we need to keep our guns.
I'm not advocating for removing the 2nd Amendment. I'm fully in favor of it.
I'm pointing out that people advocating for changing the US Constitution is putting the 2nd Amendment at risk.
Do people really not understand this?
You can't claim that the US Constitution is a monolith and sacred and unable to be changed when it suits you (2nd Amendment) and then turn around and demand the US Constitution be changed to eliminate Amendments you claim are no longer applicable to our modern society (14th Amendment).
You can't have it both ways.
Read Dredd. It is clear what the judiciary thought of the 2nd before the modern liberal.
And there are plenty of judiciary decisions on the 14th Amendment before the modern conservative take on it. So I'm not sure why you think that somehow invalidates what I'm saying...
You are making assumptions I did not imply.
Did you read Dred before you replied? I would guess not.
I have a shirt that says *constitution doesn't need rewriting it needs reread
Would this also prevent dual citizenship especially for political leaders?
No, this is by itself a question of if the child of 2 noncitizens is considered "subject to the jurisdiction thereof [the United States]", just by merely being born here.
Yes and revoke all "citizenship" given to children of illegals, born here. Let them take their birthright which is the country of their parents.
If someone breaks onto your property, unknown to you and spends the night, are they now entitled to a share of your estate?
They are trespassers, they are owed nothing. And that includes their lives
Then retroactively remove all the border hoppers and their ilk
Nothing matters if the liberals will just change it next time or the government can overpower citizens.