14th Amendment Clause 2

[weishaupt1776]

Originally Posted by stevenstevensteven

How the heck is someone new to this expected to grasp all of this. The arguments are not clear, and there appears to be little agreement within the community of this small forum.

Just read posts 1 & 6 again and it'll click

[B Rookard]

Originally Posted by weishaupt1776

Due to the complex nature of the deceptive wording
in clause 2, here's another way of looking at it. It does regurgitate some of the previous analysis, but has helped some people understand it.

Here's Clause 2:

Section. 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Okay after "But when", we have "The right to vote". The premise is that this is the right to vote for the defacto Exec, Leg, and Jud officers of a "State". In this case the State is one composed of defacto 14th Amdmt U.S. Citizens not Dejure 10th Amendment State citizens. This is the insurgent State which is a government according to 18 USC 11:

"§ 11. Foreign government defined
Release date: 2005-08-03

The term "foreign government", as used in this title except in sections 112, 878, 970, 1116, and 1201, includes any government, faction, or body of insurgents within a country with which the United States is at peace, irrespective of recognition by
the United States. "

After "the right to vote" we have "is denied"

Denied to who?

"any of the male inhabitants" (Anyone Born in America w/American parents)

"of such state" (State republic/federal colony-area)

Here's the kicker:

Remember in the first sentence it said "whole number of persons EXCLUDING indians" ?

Okay refer back to "any of the male inhabitants"

which type of inhabitants ? (so far it is all except Indians)

It continues "Being 21 years of age AND citizens of the United States"

So tacitly it is saying "All male inhabitants EXCLUDING State Citizens/American Nationals" in the same way.

It is clearly describing WHICH male inhabitants. Tons of cases pre 14th Amdmt showing that there was no such thing as a U.S. Citizen. So obviously there are a
certain part of the whole number of Male inhabitants which are these "21 year old Citizens of the U.S."

Okay so "is denied" is linked to the "right to vote" for the state anf Fed defacto officers.

Then "is denied to ANY of the male inhabitants" then obviates ALL males

But now the criteria narrows with "being 21 years of age AND citizens of the U.S."

So this means that in order to vote, a MALE must be 21 YEARS OLD AND a federal citizen.

So now it is only those federal citizens who are part of the whole number who are thrown back into the equation as being able to vote.

Now the next exception "except for participation in rebellion or crime"

So even if we throw in the "when" in "but when", we still have "But when the right to vote . . . is denied . . . except for partcipation in rebellion or crime"

"the basis of reprepresentation therein shall be reduced"

Reduced how?

"in the proportion which the the number of SUCH male citizens"

Which ones (SUCH)? The male inhabitants 21 and U.S. who ar part of a whole as
below:

"shall bear to the WHOLE NUMBER (state citizens/U.S. Citizens) of male citizens 21 years of age in such State.

This is clear that the political representation is for the part of a whole and not the whole. That part being the males "21 and U.S. citizens". Unless they are a 21
year old male citizen participating in a crime (utilizing the right to vote for defacto officers)

this right to vote is denied and the non- U.S. citizen population, which has been denied that right and who are left over are not to be represented.

Your analysis is anything but clear, and you have merely confused yourself by trying to read it so that you can "see" some sort of conspiracy.

The language, in fact, is quite clear.

Representatives are apportioned according to population, and in counting the number of people in the state, you exclude Indians who are not taxed.

As to the second clause ...

If any male inhabitants who are (1) 21 years of age or older, and (2) citizens of the United States, are denied the right to vote for the various offices (except if the reason for denial is that they committed some crime) ... then the representation afforded that state is reduced.

In other words, its a punishment against a state for denying the right to vote for electors.

How much is it reduced ... in proportion to the number of people who are denied the right to vote.

If you have 100,000 male inhabitants in the state ... and if that would entitle you to 10 representatives ... and if you deny 20,000 of those male inhabitants the right to vote ... then your representation is reduced by 2.

How hard is that?

By the way, your claim that there were no citizens of the United States before the adoption of the 14th Amendment is mistaken:

The original constitution refers to citizens of the United States ... so who do you think they were?

And as the Supreme Court has recognized: "Before its adoption the Constitution of the United States did not in terms prescribe who should be citizens of the United States or of the several States, yet there were necessarily such citizens without such provision." Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162.

[idknow]

Originally Posted by weishaupt1776

The following is a debate on a forum regarding the
language and intent mainly of Clause 2 of the 14th Amendment

[cut]

So, to have the right to vote is a crime, therefore if you have the right to
vote as a U.S. Citizen, then you are "legally" considered to be a slave
involuntarily indentured because you are participating in rebellion against you
true dejure governmental system.

Congratulations - You're an enemy, belligerent, insurgent, denizen to the
dejure governmental system.

OH- and involuntarily enslaved to boot cuz you are being re-presented

[/b]

Weishaupt:

ok, so then that means we ought all to deregister to vote?
That would appear to be the logical conclusion of your analysis.

Then, according to the analysis, What then about being elected to serve in the district of Columbia?

is that complicated or "constitutionally" impossible?

[weishaupt1776]

" . . . the right to vote at any election . . . is denied . . . to all male inhabitants . . . except for participation in rebellion, or other crime"

• 
  Thirteenth Amendment - Slavery And Involuntary Servitude
  
  Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to theirjurisdiction.

How much clearer can it be ?

P.S. Brian please explaint the legislative intent regarding the differences in phrasing "subject to it's jurisdiction" in the 14th Amdmt

and subject to "their" jurisdiction in the 13th Amdmt.

Did they need some new citizens united into one communist nation, perhaps?

[B Rookard]

Originally Posted by weishaupt1776

" . . . the right to vote at any election . . . is denied . . . to all male inhabitants . . . except for participation in rebellion, or other crime"

Are you being deceptive?

I can't but come to that conclusion when you omit the two words in the beginning ...

"But when the right to vote at any election for the[listed offices] is denied ..."

Is FAR DIFFERENT than:

"... the right to vote at any election ... is denied ...."

I don't know who you think you're trying to fool.

[weishaupt1776]

Section. 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed.

Yup, so The amt of reps is based on a % of the total amount of people in a given state, but Indians not taxed are excluded among those #'s

"But when the right to vote [ at any election for the choice ofelectors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof,] is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Let's say that A Crime Family Syndicate will only offer to the whole number of people in a neighborhood the right to choose who will be the Don and who will be his cronies; who in turn will represent all of those in the neighborhood.
But within "the whole number of neighbors" there are those who are participating in a crime, who are "such neighbors"

Unless one is participating in a crime, this right to choose the Don and his cronies is denied, and the representation is reduced to the proportion of such neighbors participating in the crime.

Does it say "But when the right is denied, the rep % is reduced" ?

Or does it say "But when it's denied; unless one is a criminal; the rep % is distributed over such citizens participating in a crime."

There is no language there saying that it is ac rime to deny one a right to vote, and that the rep % is reduced due to such behavior.

Nice Try. Keep letting slanted historians shape your interpretations of law

[B Rookard]

Better learn to read there W.

It says that if the right to vote is denied, representation is reduced ... UNLESS the reason that the vote was denied was because those people engaged in crime or rebellion.

In other words, if the States deny the right to vote to criminals, then the representation is not reduced.

And the reason is obvious, it is common practice to deny the right to vote to criminals, and the States were not about to be penalized for this common practice.

[weishaupt1776]

So, you are saying that criminals can't be represented anymore than a French National can't be, hence the laws don't apply to them ?

Since they are not represented now, you are saying the laws which are passed by "representatives" don't apply to the ones participating in the rebellion or crime(s). How can they be criminals then?

[B Rookard]

Originally Posted by weishaupt1776

So, you are saying that criminals can't be represented anymore than a French National can't be, hence the laws don't apply to them ?

Since they are not represented now, you are saying the laws which are passed by "representatives" don't apply to the ones participating in the rebellion or crime(s). How can they be criminals then?

Uh, don't be dumb.

Are you suggesting that 17 year olds who commit murder can claim that the laws don't apply because they can't vote?

I hope that's not what you're implying.

[weishaupt1776]

Brian, when it says "such citizens", is it talking about the male citizens who are denied the right to vote who are not participating in a rebellion or crime, or the ones who are?

Which one?