Tag Archives: 14th amendment

What is the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

The 14th amendment to the Constitution of the United States was enacted during Civil War reconstruction. The intent of the amendment was to insure that freed slaves enjoyed the same protections as all other Americans.

The amendment is divided into five sections. The 14th is often cited in litigation and was a centerpiece to arguments in The Slaugherhouse Cases, Lochner v. New York, Brown v. Board of Education, Mapp v. Ohio, Loving v. Virginia, Gore v. Bush, Roe v. Wade, Obergefell v. Hodges and a few others.

Section one contains the most-oft cited citizenship, due process and equal rights clauses.

Section 1. 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.

Section 2 deals with the make-up of congress. It is important to note that the 14th amendment preceded the 19th (women’s suffrage) so the section applies to men and women equally.

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.

Section 3 prevents an office-holder who aids the enemy from holding office. A 2/3rds vote of the Senate may override.

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4 re-affirms the faith of the U.S. government as to repayment of its debt. The section also prohibits congress from taking on debt to aid rebellion against the government and makes losses due to slave emancipation unrecoverable from the government.

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5 is a typical enforcement clause giving Congress the power to enforce the amendment.

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article

Should U.S. Supreme Court Overturn Michigan Anti-Affirmation Action Vote

Will White Students be denied entrance to College Admissions Office?

Will White Students be denied entrance to College Admissions Office?

If you are a white student walking into a Michigan college admissions office, you have to be wondering whether you are going to be admitted based on your grades or denied because of your ethnicity. This may soon become the reality for a countless number of white college students across the wolverine state, or America if the U.S. Supreme Court rules to invalidate state voters that voted against using race to determine college admittance in 2006.

Of course racial discrimination is unfair, repugnant and dangerous to the social viability of a nation when it is used to deny the rights of its citizens. The problem which voters in Michigan thought had been corrected was to toss out race-conscious affirmative action admission plans with a fairer race-neutral approach.

At the core of the case is the notion that fifty-eight percent of Michigan voters were seriously in error in amending the Michigan constitution to prohibit discrimination in admission to state colleges on the basis of national origin, sex, race or ethnicity.

To most voters in Michigan this seemed like a relative no-brainer. How could anyone oppose not using discriminatory practices to deny a prospective student entry to college?

It seems that the liberals and race baiters who thrive on erecting barriers to race neutrality and color blind solutions wanted a different result. Instead of desiring to work to determine real solutions to any potential problems minorities might be experiencing in matriculating from high school to college admittance, they took the more convenient route to cry racism!

This approach taken by the civil rights organizations in the state and nationally have determined without much effort, to use a formula that strips sanity from the law and replaces it with fear and racist scare tactics. The goal is to scare the judicial community and moderates who are lukewarm on everything, to abandon common sense and support a fraud which has no foundation in law or on recent facts.

Where is the proof that there is continued discrimination against minorities since the voters in Michigan decided that reverse discrimination is unjustified and beneath the dignity of a state that wants equal treatment for all of its citizens? What about a state’s sovereignty under the 10th Amendment, where the state and its citizens have a right to determine its own course in order to balance justice and equality under the law?

Another key question of law which the court must grapple with is whether or not a state amendment that bars discrimination in its constitution can be found to be unconstitutional because it does not allow discriminatory practices and remedies.

Are you confused now?

You should be, because in effect, what the advocates of affirmative action are arguing is that the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment should allow a state to openly and intentionally discriminate against a race or ethnic group as a means to remedy previous discriminatory practices.

Michigan Solicitor General John Bursch, was quoted by Click on Detroit, as stressing in his brief before the U.S. Supreme Court, “Until now, no court has ever held that, apart from remedying specific past discrimination, a government must engage in affirmative action.”

This is crucial and central to the legal subterfuge which has been erected by civil rights advocates. If the U.S. Supreme Court is not trying to remedy past discriminatory practices against minorities by negating those practices as it did in the 1954 Brown case, how can it force a state to willingly and legally engage in discriminatory practices against whites as a matter of law!

What is even more mind numbing for those who desire to advocate a race-neutral color blind approach to enforcement of the law is how cavalier the opponents of race neutral solutions bemoan the difficulties of using race-based solutions. The fact is clear; the advocates of affirmative action want to continue to divide America into racial camps which perpetuate a myth of continuous inequality that is largely non-existent in 21st century America.

According to the Christian Science Monitor, The imagined legal barrier that the Michigan voters erected was illegal because it does not allow colleges to now use their “political” option to discriminate against whites. By allowing race-based solutions for admittance, suggests Michigan-based attorney, George Washington, colleges could continue their previous practices. He went on to say, “Proposal 2 deprived racial minorities of equal political rights by prohibiting the governing bodies [of public universities] from adopting by simple majority vote any plan that granted ‘preferential treatment’ to minority applicants.”

In short, attorney Washington is stressing that universities that are largely governed by liberal administrators and admission policies, should be allowed to use their liberal political mandate to discriminate against other races, as long as they are not minority.

Now here is a plan. Why not simply spend the time, money and effort used to defend legal discriminatory warfare against those who are not minorities and instead work on race neutral solutions. Sure, it might be more difficult to craft because it takes effort, imagination and tenacity.

But in the end, the color blind solution will produce a legally justifiable outcome based on America’s foundation of “One nation under God, indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all.”

( Let me know what you think)

Illegal Aliens Now Have A Phone Number To Call If They Believe Their Civil Rights Violated


Simply UNBELIEVABLE! Illegal aliens taken into custody will be given a phone number to call if they believe their civil rights have been violated. Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano made that announcement to the House Judiciary Committee in written testimony on Wednesday, October 19, 2011. “The new detainer form also requires state and local law enforcement to provide the arrestees with a copy of the form, which includes a number to call if they believe their civil rights have been violated by ICE,” said Napolitano.

There is no word yet on the number of illegal aliens who believe their civil rights have been violated.

Regarding illegal alien rights, what does the U.S. Supreme Court say? The Supreme Court has ruled that these provisions apply to all persons in the U.S., without regard to race, or nationality. Therefore, U.S. residents – legal and illegal – have constitutional rights such as equal protection of the law and the right to due process. The Supreme Court, this source says, cites the 14th amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

The 14th amendment, ratified in 1868, begins in section 1, “1. 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.” The other four sections of this amendment are not relevant to this argument.

The United States did not limit immigration in 1868 when the 14th amendment was ratified. There were, by definition, no illegal immigrants. The 14th amendment was ratified in 1868 to protect the rights of native-born Black Americans, whose rights were being denied as recently-freed slaves. It was written in a manner so as to prevent state governments from ever denying citizenship to blacks born in the United States. But in 1868, the United States had no formal immigration policy, and the authors therefore saw no need to address immigration explicitly in the amendment. While many argue that “We the People of the United States,” refers only to legal citizens, the Supreme Court has consistently disagreed.

When the Supreme Court decides cases dealing with 1st amendment rights, it typically draws guidance from the 14th amendment’s principal of “equal protection under the law.” In essence, the “equal protection” clause extends 1st amendment protection to anyone and everyone covered by the 5th and 14th Amendments. Through its consistent rulings that the 5th and 14th amendments apply equally to illegal aliens, they also enjoy 1st amendment rights. Courts have ruled that, while they are within the borders of the United States, illegal aliens are granted the same fundamental, undeniable constitutional rights granted to all Americans.   [emphasis mine]

Is this OUTRAGEOUS? The Supreme Court now interprets “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” to include illegal immigrants. And, IMHO, the Supreme Court continues to extend, through liberal and all-encompassing interpretations, the 14th amendment. The original intent of the 14th amendment was not to facilitate illegal aliens defying U.S. law. And the Obama administration continues to take advantage of every Supreme Court interpretation favorable to them.

In Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment (1998) the Supreme Court said “jurisdiction is a word of many, too many, meanings.” Therefore, it is important to become aware of the operational meaning of “subject to the jurisdiction” as employed under the 14th amendment. Both Sen. Lyman Trumbull and Sen. Jacob Howard provide the answer, with Trumbull declaring: “The provision is, that ‘all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens’.” That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ What is meant by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof?’ Not owing allegiance to any other country or person is what it means, but the Supreme Court doesn’t see it that way.

So, where are we and what can we do? Well, all “We the People” can do is elect presidents that will appoint Supreme Court justices that will put our country ahead of their own wishes, that will read the Constitution, that will not treat it as a “living document” that can be changed at will, and will make interpretations that will preserve the ideas that made this country great. As Rush Limbaugh says, “Elections have consequences.”

But that’s just my opinion.