Home

The 14th Amendment is known as the Amendment that gave citizenship to non-Whites. If a nation is to truly open its citizenship to others, then surely it should be done lawfully and properly so that those future citizens would receive an untainted citizenship. The Amendment was drafted by Salmon P. Chase, who became the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Where is the "Separation of Powers" when the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court is reviewing legislation which he himself wrote? Every aspect of the 14th Amendment is contrary to the Original Law of the Land.

When the 14th Amendment to the Constitution was being pushed through Congress by the Radical Republicans, everyone knew that it was going to be a vote too close to call. A pre-vote survey revealed that the 14th Amendment
Bill would have been a tie vote, which meant the Bill would be rejected. The Republicans were counting every vote. So, the Radicals in the U.S.Senate voted to removed one New Jersey Senator who they knew was going to vote to the negative. That bit of Treason left one New Jersey Senatorial seat empty during the critical vote. And because of that one vote being removed, the Resolution passed through Congress and went to the States to be ratified in June of 1866. So the first obvious illegality of the 14th
Amendment was that it never "lawfully" gotten out of Congress.

After the War, in 1866, Congress knew that they could never get 2/3rds of the House and Senate to pass the 14th Amendment so they declared that the eighty "missing" representatives from the Southern States (who were denied their seats) did not exist. And after kicking the New Jersey Senator out of office, it passed with a 2/3 majority (because they did not count the 80 "missing" Southern Representatives). But then, as hypocrisy goes, the Radicals knew that the Northern States alone, would not ratify the 14th Amendment by the necessary 3/4 majority, so then they decided to include the Southern States in the ratification of the Amendment [the "missing" Southern States in Congress were found when needed].

Earlier, in 1865, the Southern States had been deceived into ratifying the 13th Amendment to get back into the Union. The Southern States were "lawful enough" to ratify the 13th Amendment but not lawful enough to take their seats in Congress. The Radicals wanted to play that
in-and-out of the Union game again in their favor for the 14th Amendment. All but Tennessee, of the Southern States, refused to ratify the 14th Amendment, the Amendment failed. The Radical Senator Doolittle of Wisconsin told Congress:

"The people of the South have rejected the Constitutional Amendment, and therefore we will march upon them and force them to adopt it at the point of a bayonet, and establish military power over them until they do adopt it."

The next legislation did just that, the Reconstruction Acts, in which required that for a "Rebel" State to be admitted to the Union, it must ratify the 14th Amendment. Congress waited from July 1866, when the States
first rejected the 14th Amendment until July of 1868 for the Amendment to pass, but it did not. Seven of the Southern States, with their Negro-Scalawag-Carpetbagger controlled governments, did ratify the Amendment, but the United States did not.

The all important election of 1868 was quickly approaching and the Republicans needed the 400,000 Southern Negro votes for them to stay in office, so they admitted into the Union, the 7 Southern States that did ratified the 14th Amendment. Two of those States did not vote for Grant in the election: Georgia and Louisiana. That helped get Georgia thrown back out of the Union. Georgia was the last Southern State to be allowed back into the Union (June1870). Even though 7 Southern States ratified the 14th Amendment individually, as required by the Reconstruction Acts, those
States were still not to be allowed into the "Union" until the Amendment was nationally ratified. Therefore the representatives from those seven States were not lawful Congressmen therefore their presence in Congress voided any
further legislation as being lawful. What happened to that great Nation of Laws not men?

So the Radicals could only let the Southern States back into the Union, as written in the Reconstruction Acts, upon the National ratification of the 14th Amendment, and not upon each State's ratification of that Amendment. So, if the Radicals let them back into the Union so that the
Black vote could be counted for the reelection Grant, then the 14th Amendment must have been ratified, right? Wrong! Here are the numbers. The Union flag that was taken down by Major Anderson at Fort Sumter in April 1861 had 33 Stars. Kansas had joined the Union in January, 1861 but in United States flag protocol, the star representing a new State was not added to the flag until July 4th. So, counting Kansas, and saying that States could not secede, there were 34 States in the Union. The false state of West Virginia became the 35th State in June of 1863. Nevada became the
36th State in October 1864. Nebraska became the 37th State in March 1867. There were 37 States in the Union when those seven States returned to Congress at the time of the so-called "ratification" of the 14th Amendment.


Being that there were 37 States in the Union, and the Constitution requires 3/4ths of those States voting in favor of ratification for an Amendment to pass, it would require 28 States voting for the Amendment. Even though Virginia, Texas and Mississippi were not seated in "Congress," they were being counted in the ratification process of the 37 States. The final numbers were 22 voting in favor; 12 voting no; and 3 not voting. There was no 28 State, 3/4 majority. The 14th Amendment did not get the
percentage of votes required to pass; it failed. But to get those 400,000 Negro votes into the critical 1868 election, the Republican controlled Congress usurped the Constitution (again) and ordered the confused Secretary of State William Seward to declare that the 14th Amendment was "enacted,"
(not passed). Was this Constitutional, or just more "appropriate legislation" empowered by the 13th Amendment? Is this America, "A Nation of Laws, not men?" No, this is the New America, "a nation of politicians, not law!"

There was also some contention concerning certain States rescinding their approval of the 14th Amendment: Oregon, Ohio, and New Jersey. But even if these were granted the affirmative, the 22 votes would become 25 votes and still would not equal the required 28 votes; but remember, those States "did" rescind their affirmative votes. The New Jersey State Senate-House Joint Resolution rescinding their approval of the 14th Amendment (prior to its adoption nationally) stated that the Amendment would:

"place new and unheard of powers in the hands of a faction, that it might absorb to itself all executive, judicial and legislative power, necessary to secure to itself immunity for the unconstitutional acts
it had already committed, and those it has since inflicted on a too patient people."

New Jersey was right. The human nature of the "public" tends to fall victim to the saying: "The bigger the lie, the more people will believe it." Congress was selling the false axiom, that the 14th Amendment was "ratified" instead of "enacted" and that it was now part of the
Constitution. It was not a part of the Constitution then, and it is not today. But remember, the real goal of Congress was to introduce enough "Legal Fiction," to make it impossible for Americans to go back to the Original Constitution of Madison and Jefferson. And the "Big Lie" of the 14th Amendment was another critical piece of that irreversible road to Congressional tyranny.

It is still important to look at the text of the 14th Amendment to realize the hidden agenda of Congress and of Chief Justice Chase. The 14th Amendment is possibly the most wordy and most powerful [so-called] Amendment of the Constitution, so I will only quote its main theme:

"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."

Part two of the Amendment says that if a State denies "citizens" the vote,then their State's representation will be proportioned disallowing those purged from voting. Is it not odd that there was a clause in the 14th Amendment to say that if a State chose not to let Negroes vote, then
the penalty would only be a reduction in its representation in Congress; meaning that there was no enforcement beyond that; again showing that it was not a "Constitutional" citizenship, but a lesser "Congressional" citizenship.

Part three prohibits any "Confederates" from holding any Federal offices, with exceptions as approved by a 2/3rds vote of Congress on each individual.

Part four prohibits any repayment of War debt by the States. Didn't that hurt the European Bankers who had investments in the South? No! Why only have "investments" in the South, when you can own it?

Part five is the same power clause contained in the 13th Amendment: "The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."

The Supreme Court, in the case of Plessey verses Ferguson, established a policy of "separate but equal" which was a way to give credibility to showing a difference between the two types of citizenship; meaning Original (Constitutional) citizenship and the new 14th Amendment
(Congressional) citizenship. Even after the 14th Amendment was being "called" law, there were persons with legal talent enough to force the courts to recognize the limited jurisdiction of the 14th Amendment. Congress reacted with the Civil Rights Bill of 1875, which called for the integration of the schools. Grant vetoed the bill (lame duck); because Republicans were trying to win the Southern White vote for their Presidential candidate Hayes.

The 14th Amendment was an attempt by Congress to bring all of the United States under the Acts that had subjugated the South. The citizenship of the 14th Amendment was a remake of the citizenship of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the Reconstruction Acts for national application. This Amendment was in no way done for the benefit of the Negro.

The 14th Amendment was worded so that lawyers could take the words "All persons born or naturalized" and apply them to corporations. The legal definition of "Person" was written to include corporations, therefore making all corporations beneficiaries of the 14th Amendment. This was
particularly applied to the post-War rush of interstate carpetbagging corporations trying to evade State controls. The 14th Amendment was a powerful tool for the railroads. In the first 40 years following the "enactment" of the 14th Amendment, there were 604 cases brought before the courts. Only 28 of those cases dealt with the Negro and his rights. The 14th Amendment was written to give corporations legal impunity to violate the State and local governments of America. Supreme Court Chief Justice Chase drafted the Amendment and sat in judgment of it; are we to assume that
he did not know it was Corporate Law?!!

The 14th Amendment of the Radical Republican Congress has been placed before America (by the corporate media) as a beacon of justice. But in reality, it was not even law. But even conceding that if this "Legal Fiction" were law, look at its use. It has been a corporate shield
disguised as a Jim Crow. It is not a beacon of justice but a distress flare for our Liberty. The slaves were freed over 135 years ago; why are their descendants still begging for justice today? The Confederate Government is not around to blame; and the Sovereign State Governments are not around to blame either. So, should we to blame the Southern people? Or blame White people? Or blame the Whites who are not liberals,or blame the White voters who are no Democrats? Blame the Federal government for refusing to lawfully empower non-Whites.

The racial problems of today are with us because the 14th Amendment was never meant to be a cure for America's social ills, it was just another "appropriate" tool to for one political party to achieve supremacy over another. It was also a legal ploy to set corporations up as America's new moneyed "nobility." The "Legal Fiction" which claims that the 14th Amendment was properly ratified, adds insult to injury for American Blacks. The American Negro has never achieved Constitutional citizenship, and because the political "Powers that Be" can not now admit their Big Lie, the future status of American Blacks will continue to be what it has been for the past 135 years: a political ward of Congress. The "Big Lie" may be taught in schools as fact and it may be believed by the uninformed, but the Original United States was meant to be a "Land of Laws, not men" and
especially not of men who are uninformed.

When does it serve any good purpose to turn away from truth? Does it serve any good purpose to pretend that something is law, when it is fiction? What is the fate of those who seek the truth? Can this country ever abandon the Legal Fiction which has robbed us of our Liberty and Justice? Is the Legal Fiction that began with the War of 1861 really irreversible? Has that Transfer of Power taken away our Rights forever, rights that were guaranteed to be perpetual? If we say yes, then that is just what we deserve!