14th Amendment

[B Rookard]

Originally Posted by Montana

goldphoenix,


This is just a guess and my current opinion of the meaning of the 14th amendment.


Notice that it says "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 to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


So, I think that you could argue jurisdiction.

That line was meant to exclude the children of foreign ambassadors and like situated people. See the Wong Kim Ark case.

My favorite is the last line where it says we have rights to the equal protection of the law.& This means that we can use other state laws.& I just filed a court document using using Oklahoma law even though I live in Montana.

Equal protection of the laws means that the States cannot discriminate ... they must afford persons within their territories the equal protections of the laws.

It doesn't mean you can use any other State's laws that you want. That would be absurd.

I think some other key points here are the fact that we are not, "persons".& We are flesh and blood men and women.& I have heard this point but I do not understand it well enough to be able to explain it, it somebody could step in and explain it that would be great.

Persons are of two kinds: (1) natural, or (2) artificial. Natural persons, as Blackstone said, are such as the god of nature has formed, men and women. Artificial persons are entities (like corporations).

Hope that this helps.


Sara-Jane

If that's the information you're putting out, it won't help.

[David Merrill]

Notice that it says "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 to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

That line was meant to exclude the children of foreign ambassadors and like situated people. See the Wong Kim Ark case.

The territorial United States is defined to be Ten Miles Square by the Constitution. Men and Women are by design to be state Citizens found in Article IV of the Constitution. State Citizens, and the Preamble People are not of the same character. State Citizens are the People who are at the moment claiming some kind of benefit of social compact. Citizens of the United States are state Citizens who at the moment are elected or appointed to service of the several states in compact called the United States - federal employees are citizens of the United States.

Without debating the relevancy of the de jure 13th Amendment, just read it in light of what I am telling you above:

"If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive, or retain any title of nobility or honour, or shall without the consent of Congress, accept and retain any present, pension, office, or emolument of any kind whatever, from any emperor, king, prince, or foreign power, such person shall cease to be a citizen of the United States, and shall be incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under them, or either of them."

This is the key to understanding why B. Rookard can sound so correct while being so very far off the mark. It is a matter of understanding the scope of systems; like classical thermodynamics.

In addition, the civil benefits of being born or naturalized into the District of Columbia was being granted to the newly emancipated black people because the whites felt they had no place among the Preamble People. Sadly, all people run to and clambor for position of status called citizens of the United States.

Equal protection of the laws means that the States cannot discriminate ... they must afford persons within their territories the equal protections of the laws.

It doesn't mean you can use any other State's laws that you want. That would be absurd.

I agree with that. There is diversity of citizenship where federal civil cases resort to the remedy of people within the District (overlay), the 'saving to suitors' clause designed for people to get out of that trap and back to common law; Title 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1333:

"...the United States, ... within their respective districts, as well as upon the high seas; (a) 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,..." The First Judiciary Act; September 24, 1789; Chapter 20, page 77. The Constitution of the United States of America, Revised and Annotated - Analysis and Interpretation - 1982; Article III, §2, Cl. 1 Diversity of Citizenship, U.S. Government Printing Office document 99-16, p. 741.

For citizens of the United States in various districts (a man in the State (District) of Montana v. a man in the State (District) of Colorado) the 'saving to suitors' clause is used to select which state law will apply.

Persons are of two kinds: (1) natural, or (2) artificial. Natural persons, as Blackstone said, are such as the god of nature has formed, men and women. Artificial persons are entities (like corporations).

This definition is okay but needs to be understood. I argued that I was not a person and had the traffic court stumped. The attorney-in-the-black-robe kept arguing I had two arms and legs etc. therefore I was a person. I kept saying I was not a person. Finally I relented that I was a natural person and the judge said, "I can work with that.", and proceeded to convict me.

Be careful not to become a person under the jurisdiction of the United States. The Trading with the Enemy Act of 1917 was amended in 1933 to include that status of persons. The gold fringes are Executive and military (admiralty) - not reserved for statute.

http://Friends-n-Family-Research.inf...my_defined.jpg
http://Friends-n-Family-Research.inf..._amended_1.jpg
http://Friends-n-Family-Research.inf..._amended_2.jpg


If that's the information you're putting out, it won't help.

Of course you can bet your bottom dollar B. Rookard is by his own testimony a citizen of the United States. He probably means well but We the People who kept the Preamble separate from the statute, the Constitution, have to keep an eye on B. Rookard's perspective as he writes.


Regards,

David Merrill.

[B Rookard]

Originally Posted by David Merrill

[color="Blue"]The territorial United States is defined to be Ten Miles Square by the Constitution.

Wrong.

http://www.geocities.com/b_rookard/langdell.html

In the Wong Kim Ark case, the plaintiff was born in the State of California and had lived there ... the Supreme Court had no problem finding that he was a citizen of the United States ... which would have necessitated a finding that he was born in the United States.

And no court has ever accepted that the "United States" is territorially limited to the District of Columbia.

[Jerseee]

Originally Posted by B Rookard

And no court has ever accepted that the "United States" is territorially limited to the District of Columbia.

You are part right Sir. that is because, the "United States" also has jurisdiction over military bases, government buildings, and other needful places that a state has ceded to the Federal government for use.

However, a court cannot overrule the Constitution.