As explained by Jon Roland, of the Constitution
Society, the language of the Fourteenth Amendment was "intended by the
framers of the Fourteenth to extend the jurisdiction and protection of federal
courts to all rights recognized by the Constitution and Bill of Rights against
actions by state government." http://www.constitution.org/col/intent_14th.htm
To learn the Fourteenth Amendment's "original intent," and what it
potentially means to you, then read the concurring opinions of Justice
BRADLEY, SWAYNE and FIELD in Bartemeyer v. Iowa (1873):
"By that portion of the fourteenth amendment by which no State may make or
enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges and immunities of citizens of
the United States, or take life, liberty, or property, without due process of
law, it has now become the fundamental law of this country that life, liberty,
and property (which include 'the pursuit of happiness') are sacred rights, which
the Constitution of the United States guarantees to its humblest
citizen against oppressive legislation, whether national or local,
so that he cannot be deprived of them without due process of law.
...
"Before this amendment and the thirteenth amendment were adopted, the
States had supreme authority over all these matters, and the National
government, except in a few particulars, could afford no protection to the
individual against arbitrary and oppressive legislation. After the civil
war had closed, the same authority was asserted, and, in the States recently in
insurrection, was exercised to the
oppression
of the freedmen; and towards
citizens of the North seeking residence there, or citizens resident there who had maintained their loyalty
during the war for nationality, a feeling of jealousy and
dislike existed which could not fail soon to fined expression in discriminating
and hostile legislation. It was to prevent the possibility of such legislation
in future, and its enforcement where already adopted, that the fourteenth
amendment was directed. It grew out of the feeling that a union which had been
maintained by such costly sacrifices was, after all, worthless if a citizen
could not be protected in all his fundamental rights everywhere- North and
South, East and West-throughout the limits of the Republic.
The
[fourteenth] amendment was not, as held in the opinion of the majority
[in the Slaughter-House Cases],
primarily intended to
confer citizenship on the negro race. It had a much broader purpose; it was intended to
justify legislation [i.e., now codified as 42 USC sections 1983, 1985,
1986] , extending the protection of the National government over the common
rights of
all citizens of the
United States, and thus obviate objections to the
legislation [i.e., the Civil Rights Act of 1866, and the Freemen's Bureau Act]
adopted for the protection of the emancipated race. It was intended to
make it possible for
all persons, which necessarily
included those of every race and color, to live in peace
and security wherever the jurisdiction of the nation reached. It, therefore,
recognized, if it did not create,
a
National citizenship,
and made
all persons citizens except those who preferred to
remain under the protection of a foreign government; and
declared that their privileges and immunities, which embrace the fundamental
rights belonging to citizens of all free governments, should not be abridged by
any State. This
National citizenship [85 U.S. 129, 141] is primary, and
not secondary. It clothes its possessor, or would do so if not shorn of its
efficiency by construction, with the right, when his privileges and immunities
are invaded by partial and discriminating legislation, to appeal from his State
to his Nation, and gives him the assurance that, for his protection, he can
invoke the whole power of the government."
That profound declaration of the purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment
is a correct and contemporaneous statement of the "original intent" of
the First Section of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United
States, and that view was correctly and fully embraced by the entire
Supreme Court of the United States (up until the present, Rehnquist,
Supreme Court). See, cases collected in "Law" (Part 1) and the
recently created Doctrine of Unauthorized Deprivation (Part 2) at
www.billstclair.com/ferran
As the Justices said, the Fourteenth Amendment "was intended to
justify legislation [i.e., now codified as 42 USC sections 1983, 1985,
1986], extending the protection of the National government over the common
rights of
all citizens of the United States, and thus
obviate objections to the legislation adopted for the protection of the
emancipated race." The legislation effecting the purpose referred
to, enacted by Congress (in 1871) to extend the "protection of the
National government over the common rights of
all citizens of the
United States," was titled "An
Act to Enforce the Provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment" approved
April 20, 1871 (now codified in 42 USC sections 1983, 1985, 1986):
42 U.S.C. Section
1983. Civil action for deprivation of rights:
"Every person who, under color of any statute,
ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or
the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any
citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction
thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities
secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party
injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding
for redress."
Title 42, United States Code, Sec. 1983 (History: R.S. Sec. 1979
derived from act Apr. 20, 1871, ch. 22, Sec. 1, 17 Stat. 13. "An Act to
Enforce the Provisions of the Fourteenth
Amendment." |
42 U.S.C. Section
1985. Conspiracy to interfere with civil rights:
- (2) If two or more persons in any State or Territory
... conspire for the purpose of impeding, hindering,
obstructing, or defeating, in any manner, the due course of justice in
any State or Territory, with intent to deny to any
citizen the equal protection of the laws, or to injure
him or his property for lawfully enforcing, or attempting to enforce,
the right of any person, or class of
persons, to the equal protection of the laws;
- (3) [or] If two or more persons in any State or Territory
conspire ... for the purpose of depriving, either directly or
indirectly, any person or class of persons of the equal
protection of the laws, or of equal privileges and
immunities under the laws; or for the purpose of preventing or
hindering the constituted authorities of any State or Territory from
giving or securing to all persons within such State or Territory the
equal protection of the laws; or if two or more persons conspire to
prevent by force, intimidation, or threat, any citizen who is lawfully
entitled to vote, from giving his support or advocacy in a legal
manner, toward or in favor of the election of any lawfully qualified
person as an elector for President or Vice President, or as a Member
of Congress of the United States; or to injure any citizen in person
or property on account of such support or advocacy;
-
- in any case of conspiracy set forth in this section, if one or
more persons engaged therein do, or cause to be done, any act in
furtherance of the object of such conspiracy, whereby another is
injured in his person or property, or deprived of having and
exercising any right or privilege of a citizen of the United States,
the party so injured or deprived may have an action for
the recovery of damages occasioned by such injury or deprivation,
against any one or more of the conspirators.
Title 42, United States Code, Sec. 1985. [History: R.S. Sec. 1980
derived from acts July 31, 1861, ch. 33, 12 Stat. 284; Apr. 20, 1871, ch.
22, Sec. 2, 17 Stat. 13 "An Act to Enforce the Provisions of the
Fourteenth Amendment." Section was formerly classified to section 47 of
Title 8, Aliens and Nationality.] |
This statute, enacted to aid in "'the preservation of human liberty
and human rights'" Owen v. City of Independence, 445 US 622, 636 (1980),
reflects a congressional judgment that a "damages remedy against the
offending party is a vital component of any scheme for vindicating
cherished constitutional guarantees." As remedial legislation,
[the Act to Enforce the Provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment] is to be
construed generously to further its primary purpose.
Gomez v. Toledo, 446 US 635 (1980). |
The commandment in the Fourteenth Amendment that the People in each state
must give to every "person" within their jurisdiction the "equal protection of
the laws," is a codification of the Ancient Hebrew "One Law" (for citizens and
strangers alike) principle and a codification of Jesus' Golden Rule (i.e., you
and your neighbors should be treated equally by all humans administering the
power of the sword). "It sought equality of treatment of all persons
... similarly situated. .... It means that no person or class of persons
shall be denied the same protection of
the laws which is enjoyed by other persons or other classes in the same place
and under like circumstances." Truax v. Corrigan, 257 US 312, 331, 338
(1921). http://billstclair.com/ferran/markferran1.html
The Due Process of Law commandment in the Fourteenth Amendment is a
codification of the rule prescribed in Deuteronomy that the King shall read and
keep within the Law, and deviate neither to The Right Nor to The Left, nor shall
he commit theft, nor murder. "The due process clause requires that every
man shall have ... the benefit of
the
general law, ... so that every citizen shall hold his life, liberty and
property and immunities under the protection of the general rules which govern
society. It of course tends to secure equality...." Truax v. Corrigan, 257
US 312, 331, 338 (1921).
http://billstclair.com/ferran/markferran1.html The
Judeo-Christian pedigree of the Law Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment is why
the Devil now seeks to use deceit and earthly hosts of deceit to tear down that
Christian Law. That is why you have Teachers of the Law today, like the
Whitewashed Tombs of old, declaring that only certain people are "neighbors"
entitled to the protection of the Golden Rule prescribed in the Fourteenth
Amendment. The methods of the Devil have not changed. The
words of the Constitution have not changed. What has changed is that
the Churches no longer teach the Constitution as containing the
Expressed Will of God on Earth, and the People no longer recognize that God's
Commandments already were, after much bloody struggle and Martyrdom, written
into the Constitution of the United States.
You can read the Congressional Debates (links below) during
the 39th (1866) and 41st Congress (1871) which thoroughly discuss the purposes
of the Fourteenth Amendment. First, I recommend that you read Jon Roland's
recitation of the legislative history and purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment,
at:
http://www.constitution.org/col/intent_14th.htm
Then read the "Act to Enforce the Provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment
(April 20, 1871) (now codified as 42 USC sections 1983, 1985
and 1986) and read the bare-majority opinion and the Dissenting
Opinions in the Slaughter House cases (1871), and read the decision
appealed from in that case (which held that the Civil Rights Act of 1866
benefited "white citizens").
"The essence of the Fourteenth Amendment in a Nutshell: The
Constitution of the United States was written to protect us from intrusion of
our God given Rights by the Federal Government. The Fourteenth Amendment
was necessary to protect us from intrusion on our God Given Rights by state
governments, political subunits [e.g., cities, towns, counties], and individuals
who act under color of law." Richard Cornforth, Secrets of the Legal
Industry
http://www.familyguardian.tzo.com/PublishedAuthors/Indiv/CornforthRichard/SecretsOfTheLegalIndustry.pdf
"
For the first century of our history,
the federal Bill of Rights was a protection
solely in relation to
federal
authorities;
state constitutions
protected the People from abuse
by state
authorities. Barron v. Mayor of Baltimore, decided by the United States
Supreme Court in 1833, exemplifies this design. By a series of ordinances, the
City of Baltimore had redirected the course of several streams so that they ran
into a harbor near a wharf owned by Barron, Barron proved to the satisfaction of
the trial court that the soil and debris carried down by the streams made the
harbor so shallow that his pier became unusable. After losing before a Maryland
court of appeals, Barron appealed to the United States Supreme Court, arguing
that the City of Baltimore had taken his property without just compensation in
violation of the fifth amendment. In a unanimous decision written by Chief
Justice Marshall, himself a great federalist, the Court dismissed the appeal for
want of jurisdiction. The fifth amendment-and by analogy, the entire Bill of
Rights-in Chief Justice Marshall's words, "is
intended solely as a limitation
on the exercise of power by the government of the United States, and is not
applicable to the legislation of the states." As the Court wrote: "Each state
established a constitution for itself, and, in that
constitution, provided
such limitations and restrictions on the powers of its particular government as
its judgment dictated."
http://www.courts.state.ny.us/history/elecbook/kaye_cardozo/pg2.htm
If you want to understand the Fourteenth Amendment, and 42 U.S.C.
section
1983, 1985, and 1986, and its Christian Purposes, read the
Congressional
Globe that includes the Debates leading up to the enactment of
the Act to
Enforce the Fourteenth Amendment on April 20, 1871:
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=100/llcg100.db&recNum=2I
will warn you, reading this History may make you sad and angry as an American
to
realize what contemporary Judges have done to destroy this Christian Law,
and the hope
it once offered to mankind. See, Part 1 and Part 2
at
http://billstclair.com/ferranHere
is the list of Pages of the 1871 Congressional Globe containing the
debates
on the Bill that became The civil rights act of 1871 (the Act to Enforce the
Fourteenth Amendment), and 42 USC s 1983, 1985, 1986:
H. R. No. 320-- "To enforce the provisions of the fourteenth amendment
to
the Constitution of the United States."--[By Mr.
Shellabarger.]
Reported, 317; discussed, 317, 329, 335, 351, 361, 364, 376,
393, 397, 408,
409, 421, 436, 441, 463, 475, 489, 490, 508; passed, 522;
explanations, 582;
passed Senate with amendments, 716; discussed, 723;
conference, 725, 734;
conference report, 749; discussed, 750, 787, 798;
report agreed to by
Senate, 749; rejected by House, 801; new conference, 801,
802; conference
report, 804; discussed, 804; agreed to by House, 808; by
Senate, 804;
enrolled, 833; approved, 838.
In Senate: Received from
House, 523; referred, 523; reported, 538;
discussed, 567, 599, 645, 653, 685,
686; passed with amendments, 709;
conference, 727, 728; conference report,
754; discussed, 754, 769, 773;
concurred in by Senate, 779; disagreed to by
House, 810; new conference,
810; conference report, 819; discussed, 819;
concurred in by Senate, 831; by
House, 832; enrolled, 832.
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/hlaw:@field(DOCID+@lit(cg0994
As for the Ratification of the Fourteenth
Amendment, it was a Peace Treaty between the former states in the South (who had
effectively seceded) and the victorious coalition of States in the North.
The first American Civil War was waged between states, and the Peace Treaty
(14th Amendment) was Ratified in accordance with principles International Law
and the Law of War. Those southern states who had waived and forfeited
their Constitutional Rights as member-states of the Union had no legal standing
to complain that they were later "forced" or coerced into ratifying that
Amendment as a condition to their re-admission to the Union. The
provision of the 14th Amendment which gave Congress the power to deny Offices
within the Government of the United States to formerly rebellious southerners
was necessary to prevent by means of "infiltration" the destruction of the Union
which had been attempted by the recent War between the states.
The Provisions relating to citizenship and
protection of "persons" were immediately necessary to empower Congress to
prevent the southern states from again denying the protection of the Law,
and the status of state-citizens, to those citizens of the United States who
had remained loyal within, or who later entered with loyalty to, the
Union. Those Treaty provisions, giving Congress the Power to
enforce those principles of International Law, were Necessary in order to
preserve the Peace which had been secured at a great cost to human Life, Liberty
and Property. The Fourteenth Amendment was NECESSARY to the
preservation of the "more perfect Union" of American states, and it "grew out of
the feeling that a union which had been maintained by such costly sacrifices
was, after all, worthless if a citizen could not be protected in all his
fundamental rights everywhere- North and South, East and West-throughout the
limits of the Republic."
Salus populi est
suprema lex. (The welfare of the people is
the supreme law)
What the later People of the "more perfect Union"
have done, or allowed to be done, to themselves since then, under color
of the 16th Amendment, the Spending Clause, the Commerce Clause, and the
Equal Protection Clause, is wholly their own responsibility, because they had
the Power to Vote, as "citizens of the United States," except to the extent that
what has been done has been done by Lying Divinations of Federal Judges who have
been placed into Tenure almost completely beyond the Republican Forms of
our Government. The Impeachment Power of Congress has been far too
idle.
In my opinion, the current Justices of the Supreme
Court can be and ought to be Impeached for effectively repudiating and repealing
the fundamental Constitutional principles of Magna Carta that are EXPRESSLY
incorporated in the Due Process of Law provisions of the Fifth and Fourteenth
Amendments. Repudiating Magna Carta is the ultimate
"deal-breaker" among those who would otherwise support a Government, and
justifies those who would alter or abolish that Government.
Mark R. Ferran BSEE scl JD mcl