Rights and Privileges in the U.S. Constitution
by Eric Gray
Rights and Privileges in the U.S. Constitution
Here's the 13th Amendment (not the original 13th, but the one currently shown as the 13th)
Amendment XIII (1865)
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 their jurisdiction.
Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by
appropriate legislation.
Pretty straight forward, right? I suppose it could be fancied up, but
it does what it intended, it eliminates slavery, the class of being a
"slave." Of being "owned" by another. But it only took 7 lines of text
to free the slaves. Interesting...
Okay, now here's the 14th. And I'll point out the problems with this
amendment, but let's just get the amendment here complete and intact:
Amendment XIV (1868)
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. 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. 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. 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. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate
legislation, the provisions of this article.
Kinda wordy huh? Almost 50 lines......
Okay, now a little bit of background.
The principle behind the Declaration of Independence is that ALL
people have certain rights. Even if you live under Communist China, in
a prison camp, you still have those rights, it's just that the Chinese
_government_ does not recognize them. The Constitution of the United
States is saying that _this_ government, that of the States of this
Union, WILL recognize these rights. (It's a promise to the people.) We
go further in enumerating _some_ of them in the Bill of Rights, but
there is a fundamental belief that all people have these rights. Even
someone here "illegally" has those rights. Both enumerated and those
not enumerated, but generally agreed upon as "natural" rights.
So look back at the 13th amendment. Now think about it, did we need a
14th amendment to free the slaves again? ... No, not really. The
problem was that there were all these laws that were being passed on
the local level that restricted the rights of the freed slaves. (In
defiance to putting slaves the same class as "whites.") When they
removed the class of "slave" there was only one thing left, and that
was to be "human." And thus they would have these generally agreed
upon "natural" rights.
What SHOULD have happened was that the laws restricting rights based
on race should have been challenged in the State Courts and brought
before the Supreme Court of the US. And this did happen, but for some
reason, the USSC ruled that these laws (some) were not in violation of
the Constitution! This makes no sense at all. If they had ruled
correctly it would have had the effect of recognizing these rights to
all races. Just like they had been doing for years for white humans in
this country.
But, LOOK AT THIS: (from Amendment 13)
Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by
appropriate legislation.
See, it says we will enforce this amendment WITH LEGISLATION!! Not
another amendment. Very telling!
Just what is the 14th Amendment for then?
Lets' look at the 14th Amendment. (3 years later)
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.
With this statement we created something called a US Citizen. We then
_gave_ this US Citizen certain privileges. They even are nice enough
to specify them, and low and behold, they RESEMBLE those mentioned
in the Declaration of Independence, but notice the difference. It
uses the word "privilege." Strange, the Declaration of Independence
uses the word "rights." Also, notice it then gives us the "privilege"
of "due process," and "equal protection." Previously those were
rights.
And what's this "subject to ..." BS. Read the original 10 amendments,
even up to 11. ALL of these amendments are limiting what governments
can do. Here we have a limitation of the people. Look at that "subject
to..." clause. What do you think Samuel Adams would have had to say
about being "subject to..." anyone?
The first time I ever read this amendment, I thought it so strange
that they would just repeat those same "rights" that we already had.
However, the first time I read this amendment, I was a young lad still
in high school, and I didn't see the subtle difference. I'm much older
and wiser and experienced, and I see the differences now.
What it does is establish a great big Federal government wing, under
which we all will be cuddled. It's telling the states, "These are
MINE, hands off!" Notice the wording, "Citizens of the United
States." I see a hint: "of?" Hummm. "This car is the third one of
my collection." "I have thousands of baseball cards." Isn't that
like, "ownership?" Now go a little further: "within its
jurisdiction" There is another possessive; "within its." Didn't the
13th amendment just say slavery, the owning of another human being, is
w/o legal foundation? Besides, how can a "government of the people,"
(notice "of," i.e., the government is owned by the people) now
suddenly own the people? This is the EXACT opposite to the meaning
behind the Declaration of Independence. It just doesn't fit.
Compare...
...A government of the people...
v.
Citizens of the United States
Repeat it
...A government of the people...
v.
Citizens of the United States
Those two are OPPOSITES. In the first, "a government" is a subset of
"the people," but in the second, "citizens" are a subset of "the
United States." That is a key difference, and one that should make you
think.
But you say, So what, even if we are "of the United States" we have
these "rights" so it's no big deal. Well that would be wrong. We don't
have "rights" we have "privileges." BIG difference. Think about it.
The Constitution and Bill of Rights don't use the word "privilege"
anywhere in regard to "we the people." In fact, it's just the
opposite. "We the people" have rights, and the government has
"privileges." Go and read it. It's the Bill of Rights, not the Bill of
Privileges. There must be a reason for the use of the word
"privileges." Think about it. Why not just use the word "rights?"
Okay, we'll come back to that...
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.
Hey look! They didn't forget! The word "right" still existed in 1868!
Here it is! How interesting. Why would they keep the "right to vote,"
but convert the right to free speech into a privilege? And all the
other rights into privileges? Oh, but look what they did! They said
only "citizens of the United States" have the right to vote. There is
that "of" again. Don't you think it strange that they give us that
same "right" we already have? This makes no sense does it? Or does it?
Think about this some too...
We'll continue while you are thinking...
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.
Guess they just had to punish those rebels, eh? That's strange. Do you
think it's strange? I do. I'll tell you why. When we won our
independence from the King of England, there was a group of people who
wanted to keep the Tories (You do remember the Tories, right?) out of
the new government. In fact, there was some hot discussion over it.
But the founding fathers fought against such an idea. _Traditionally,_
the rule had been "to the victors, go the spoils!" But Thomas
Jefferson didn't feel that way, and he was speaking for many. In fact,
he said:
If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union or
to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as
monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be
tolerated where reason is left free to combat it.
(from Thomas Jefferson's First Inaugural Address, March 4th 1801)
I just love that! Isn't that just AWESOME! I think it is. The Tories
were fighting on the side of the British! They were spies and
"traitors!" But Jefferson said, let them be... Oh yea, go back up to
Section 2, and you'll see the 14th Amendment REMOVED those people
who fought against the north, right to vote too! Does that fly in the
face of the founding fathers principles? So I find it strange now that
we would hold something over those who fought against the government.
Sure it could happen, but it certainly violates the principles upon
which the Constitution is rooted.
Now look at the "comfort to the enemies thereof.." This is saying no
one may be an elected official if they give aid to "the enemies" of
the United States of America. This has in intereseting twist when we
learn about the Trading With The Enemies Act of 1917 and it's revision
in 1933.
But we'll come back to this....
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.
Wow!! "The validity of the public debt ... shall not be questioned."
Here again, we have this conflict w/the original intentions of the
Bill of Rights, specifically the first one! "...shall not be
questioned! Indeed! Go back and reread what Jefferson just said. He
says, let them speak! For it is through their error that the truth can
be revealed. Here we have a CLEAR violation of the of the
Constitution, specifically the First Amendment! And as such, does that
not VOID this Amendment? Certainly it does Section 4.
Oh yea, and here we are punishing the rebels again. I wonder what the
real reason is? But we'll get to that....
Now let's stop and THINK. We have the right to be a communist here. We
have the right to worship eggs if we want. We have the right to openly
question our president. We have the right to say just about anything
we want, so long as it doesn't cause harm to another... But look at
this, we are not allowed to call into question the debt, the debt that
WE are required to pay!
Look! Listen!
<yelling very loudly>
I, Eric Gray, from the great state of Arizona, home of the
Arizona Sand Trout, located in the great city of Tucson, Skin
Cancer Capital of the World, do hereby inquire, Who do we owe
the national debt to, and why are we forced to pay interest on a
worthless currency?
Right now, I'M IN VIOLATION OF THE LAW! Ahhhh!!!!!!!
Gee, do you think this is how it was intended?
THINK folks, let's just start thinking about all this...
I'll continue after you've had time to let this sink in a little bit.
© 1995 Eric Gray - The Desert Reef BBS
3705 N. Runway, Tucson, Az 85705
Reproduce at will electronically, please notify me if used in print,
and send copies of print. Thank you. (more to come...)
|
