The Obergefell v. Hodges decision is probably the worst case of legislation from the federal bench and impermissible judicial activism⁴⁵ in our lifetime; it is simply the Dred Scott decision of our day. Not one shred of legislative intent, debate or ratification discussion³⁵ as a proper legal construction is presented or is made part of the record.

This latest travesty of the Court assaults our sensibilities for the lefts latest societal change masquerading as constitutional law. It becomes another waypoint a mere moments rest as our society is radically transitioned from a Christian centered nation to a debased society where anything goes. Not by acts of Congress, or will of the people by amending the Constitution but actions of an unelected body of judges on the Supreme Court as they fulfill the desire of a select few that wish to impress their will on the nation for a society devoid of the rule of law, comity and morals.

With this decision it is the people be damned, which is dramatized by this excerpt from the majorities opinion:

“whether same-sex couples may exercise the right to marry. Were the Court to uphold the challenged laws as constitutional, it would teach the Nation that these laws are in accord with our society’s most basic compact.”

So now we are nothing but unruly children and must be taught what is best for us by these five unelected oligarchs…who never reveal where in the Constitutional record this alleged “right” is hidden other than claiming it is in the 14^th Amendment.

The Supreme Court has forced bussing, school desegregation, abortion, college entrance racial quotas and divined gender discrimination all from thin air, now they come forward and find ever more rights hiding in this same Amendment. Now it’s gay marriage as a newly formed right based on what the majority calls ‘identity’ proclaimed for every State in the entire nation.

We shutter to think on how this newly formed and found ‘identity’ as a Constitutional model and principle will morph by future actions of the Court…no doubt through the 14^th Amendment.

These new identity rights were found in the post civil war amendment drafted to enshrine the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and to grant former slaves separate²⁹ but ‘equal rights’ with other Americans which were known as ‘privileges and immunities’¹² under the Constitution and grant them to the freedmen who had been merely chattels as slaves by the framers of the amendment.

This is nothing short of a revolution or coup, to suddenly after 226 years find that marriage is no longer a State power under Article IV Sec. 4 and the 10^th Amendment. But is now a right that had been hiding in the 14^th Amendment, and that the States had been in the majority’s opinion oppressing gay couples who wished to be married:

“[t]he freedom secured by the Constitution consists, in one of its essential dimensions, of the right of the individual not to be injured by the unlawful exercise of governmental power.”

Who knew that a State government not acting in accordance with the wishes of an infinitesimally small portion (less than .052% of our population) of their citizens wishes; in this case to be married was somehow unlawful exercise of governmental power. Could this be the revolution or coup mentioned above, or is it the “judicial Putsch” that Justice Scalia called the majority’s decision in his dissenting opinion.

For a sitting Justice to use such incendiary language raises some serious questions which were not answered by Justice Scalia or the three other Justices, Roberts, Thomas and Alito in their dissenting opinions.

 This led to the obvious question, is their something hiding in plain sight in the 14^th Amendment that may hold the key to turn back this abysmal travesty of comity and the hijacking of our constitutional processes, and even due process itself, to allow the people the right to decide this and other matters for ourselves.

The 14^th Amendment’s History

This amendment was born out of the aftermath of the civil war to grant equal but separate rights⁷ to the recently freed slaves that had been considered property under another travesty of the Courts opinion, Dred Scott. It was to mirror and enshrine equal rights that all Americans enjoy, to life, liberty and property, and were granted in the Civil Rights Act of 1866 ⁹ and nothing more as the Congressional record is clear it was not to grant suffrage¹³ or integrate education between white and black children to the freedmen.

The States were left free to practice segregation and withhold political rights from them.

The freedmen were to be granted the right to safety in ones own being, the right to relocate and move about as one wished free from incarceration, travel restrictions or bondage, the right to purchase property, to bring suit in court and be sued and testify in court which every American enjoyed as ‘privileges and immunities’¹² under the Constitution.

The leading Radical Republicans²⁰ in Congress felt an amendment to the Constitution was needed to make the Civil Rights Act of 1866 nearly impossible to repeal, and to grant these rights in perpetuity to the freedmen. Ironically, it also strengthened the powers of suffrage and education belonging to the States to discriminate amongst their citizens which we still have today.

Discriminate means that the States decides who can vote, attend school and a host of other conditions have been retained by the States since the Constitution was ratified in 1789 as they legislate through their police powers of the 10^th Amendment; and by their sovereignty of Article IV of the States Republican form of government.

The 14^th Amendment has a questionable legislative and unconstitutional ratification history with ramifications steeped in the abolitionist politics of the day and covers this issue with so much intrigue and subterfuge that it begs to be revealed once again and the amendment scrapped.

Constitutional Defects

The first glaring violation of the Constitution was when the joint resolution for the proposed amendment was not submitted to President Johnson for his approval as required in Article 1 Sec. 7. It was brought to the Senate and House of Representatives attention on June 22, 1866 by President Johnson in a letter to them, and was read on the floor of the Senate, it was directed to be printed into the record of the Senate Journal (source: Library of Congress) the salient printed portion from the Journal is shown below: The representation issue that President Johnson discusses is no simple matter since it goes to the heart of the Constitutional question of representation of the States of the Union in regard to the joint resolution of Congress for what would become the 14^th Amendment. This means that 23 Senators were not seated in the Senate at the time that this joint resolution was passed and barred these 11 states and New Jersey from any input on what this amendment would become, and subsequently violated Article 1, Sec. 3:

“The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State”

It was also in furtherance to unconstitutional acts by the 39^th Congress in violation of Article V :

“No State, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.”

All of this came about because the Republicans and their Radical colleagues had refused to seat the Senators and Representatives from the Southern States that had been in rebellion against the Union forces and shown in Johnson’s letter to the House and Senate of June 22, 1866:

Let’s dispense with the question of why these Senators and Representatives were not seated in Congress after being sent to Washington by their respected legislatures and citizens, as we are working from the Congressional and historical record and we will ignore the political intrigue that went on during this time, the facts speak for themselves.

With that said; it appears this was done so that this amendment could be passed in a decidedly and almost exclusively ‘Radical Republican’ Congress… Eight States sent protest by Resolution of their legislatures to Congress over these Senators and Representatives not being seated in the 39^th Congress and the proposed amendment was in their opinion unconstitutional, the following States protested:

New Jersey, by Resolution of March 27, 1868 (New Jersey Acts, March 27, 1868.) ¹

Alabama, by Resolution (Alabama House Journal, 1866, pp. 210-213)

Texas, by Resolution on October 15, 1866 (Texas House Journal, 1866, p. 577) ²

Arkansas, by Resolution on December 17, 1866 (Arkansas House Journal, 1866, p. 287)³

Georgia, by Resolution on November 9, 1866 (Georgia House Journal, 1866, p. 66-67)⁴

Florida, by Resolution of December 5, 1866 (Florida House Journal, 1866, p. 76)⁵

South Carolina, by Resolution of November 27, 1866 (South Carolina House Journal, 1866, pp. 33-34)⁶

North Carolina, by Resolution of December 6, 1866 (North Carolina Senate Journal, 1866-67, pp. 92-93)⁷

Without placing all the Resolutions before the reader a few of the more salient passages from some of the States will be presented, for the others the links to the notes section at the end of the dates above will allow them to be read:

New Jersey…

“they deliberately formed and carried out the design of mutilating the integrity of the United States Senate, and without any pretext or justification, other than the possession of the power, without the right, and in the palpable violation of the Constitution, ejected a member of their own body, representing this state, and thus practically denied to New Jersey its equal suffrage in the Senate, and thereby nominally secured the vote of two thirds of the said house.”

Georgia…

“Two thirds of the whole Congress never would have proposed to eleven States voluntarily to reduce their political power in the Union, and at the same time, disfranchise the larger portion of the intellect, integrity, and patriotism of eleven co-equal States.”

South Carolina…

“Hence this amendment has not been proposed by “two thirds of both Houses” of a legally constituted Congress, and is not, Constitutionally or legitimately, before a single Legislature for ratification.”

Combine these facts that the 39^th Congress was a constitutionally defective seated body and a joint resolution being passed by same. Congress expected the joint resolution to be sent to the State legislatures by the Secretary of State William Henry Seward, even though it had not been submitted to the President for his signature making the joint resolution a nullity. Much less the skullduggery of removing a sitting Senator from a Northern State: causing the New Jersey legislature to protest by means of a Resolution, all of this was done to reach the 2/3rds requirement for submission to the States which would have been impossible if the Senators and Representatives had been seated from the eleven Southern States.

The Joint Resolution has Failed

The Resolution has not even been submitted to the States yet and it has failed constitutional muster at every turn, from Congress itself, and the President, two branches of our federal government on June 22, 1866. It is constitutionally and legally defective and in the words of Arkansas from their Resolution of protest of December 17, 1866:

“The Constitution authorized two thirds of both houses of Congress to propose amendments; and, as eleven States were excluded from deliberation and decision upon the one now submitted, the conclusion is inevitable that it is not proposed by legal authority, but in palpable violation of the Constitution.”

The Unconstitutional Joint Resolution of Congress is Submitted to the States Anyway

The 39^th Congress itself was an unconstitutional legislative body and created a defective resolution that would become the 14^th Amendment it was submitted by the Secretary of State to the State legislatures fully knowing that it was legally and constitutionally defective. It was subsequently rejected by all the Southern States along with the Northern States of Delaware, Ohio, New Jersey and Maryland:

Texas rejected the Fourteenth Amendment on October 27, 1866¹²
Georgia rejected on November 9, 1866¹³
Florida rejected on December 6, 1866¹⁴
Alabama rejected on December 7, 1866¹⁵
Arkansas rejected on December 17, 1866¹⁶
North Carolina rejected on December 14, 1866¹⁷
South Carolina rejected on December 20, 1866¹⁸
Kentucky rejected on January 8, 1867¹⁹
Virginia rejected on January 9, 1867²⁰
Louisiana rejected on February 6, 1867²¹
Delaware rejected on February 7, 1867²²
Maryland rejected on March 23, 1867²³
Ohio rejected on January 15, 1868²⁴                                                                                                                

Mississippi rejected on January 31, 1868²⁵
New Jersey rejected on March 24, 1868²⁶

The 14^th Amendment Has Failed Ratification

As it needed twenty seven States to accept the joint resolution and only received 21 votes for ratification which left the Resolution dead and failed by an action of the duly recognized legislatures of these States by early 1867. This means that the proposed amendment has failed in fact and in law and that it could not be considered again without a new joint resolution of Congress being debated and passed by a 2/3^rd majority of the House and Senate and submitted to the president for his signature.

If the constitution was being honored, much less followed that is. This is an important point as these States had another joint resolution presented to them in 1865 which they ratified and became the 13^th Amendment which outlawed slavery. This could only have been done by duly elected and seated legislative body(s) of the States recognized by Secretary of State Seward to receive the joint resolution of Congress for their consideration, and by the following Presidential Proclamations of presidents Lincoln & Johnson normalizing their State governments:

This is shown by Lincoln’s No. 11 Proclamation dated December 8, 1863 on the conditions for these same States for their admittance back into the Union. On May 29, 1865 the government of North Carolina had been re-established by Proclamation of President Johnson, he did the same for Mississippi on June 13, 1865, and Georgia on June, 17, 1865, Alabama on June 21, 1865, South Carolina on June 30, 1865, Florida on July 18, 1865.

The 13th Amendment was proposed by a Joint Resolution of Congress with the Senate passing it on April 8, 1864; the House passed it on January 31, 1865 and was approved the following day February 1, 1865 by President Abraham Lincoln by signing the joint resolution, as required by Article I, Section 7 of the Constitution. The 13th Amendment was ratified by twenty seven of the thirty six states of the Union, including Virginia, Louisiana, Arkansas, South Carolina, North Carolina, Alabama, and Georgia. Since these States considered and approved the proposed Amendment, there can be no doubt that these legislatures were duly enabled, empowered and seated to consider this Amendment to the Constitution, the facts speak for themselves, since it was ratified on December 6, 1865.

On April 2, 1866, President Andrew Johnson issued a proclamation stating the following States were no longer in a state of belligerence and they were at peace with the Union:

“The insurrection which heretofore existed in the States of Georgia, South Carolina, Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, Alabama, Louisiana, Arkansas, Mississippi, and Florida is at an end, and is henceforth to be so regarded.^”

Then on August 20, 1866 Johnson through another proclamation had declared peace and that the insurrection of the Southern States had come to an end with an understanding with Texas:

“Now, therefore, I, Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, do hereby proclaim and declare that the insurrection which heretofore existed in the State of Texas is at an end and is to be henceforth so regarded in that State as in the other States before named in which the said insurrection was proclaimed to be at an end by the aforesaid proclamation of the 2nd day of April, 1866.

And I do further proclaim that the said insurrection is at an end and that peace, order, tranquility, and civil authority now exist in and throughout the whole of the United States of America.”

The date of these proclamations are important to this discussion as it sets the stage for what comes next as these States are now considered to be within the Union and fully part once again of our Compact in conformance with the resolutions of Congress and the Senate of 1861 and 1863. This means that these States have been recognized by the president to all the rights and privileges of the Constitution free of interference in their own internal affairs, free to pass laws, collect taxes send representatives and senators to Washington D.C. of their choosing as their legislatures are functioning within the Constitutions requirements of Article IV Sec. 4.

Congress Rains Retribution on the Southern States with the Reconstruction Acts for Failure to Ratify the 14^th Amendment

To understand and fully discuss what comes next we need to set the stage on how the 37^th Congress and Abraham Lincoln’s government viewed the civil war in the initial stages with almost identical Resolutions of the House of Representatives and the Senate. Here is a portion of the resolution:

This Resolution initiated the civil war for the House of Representatives, it was not a war of conquest, or of domination, but simply to reestablish the Union, in peace and prosperity and the Constitution to all States and citizens of the United States. This may have changed as the war proceeded but the evidence suggests this was so by the acts of Presidents Lincoln then Andrew Johnson. This was to be a war of reconciliation and to reestablish the Union.

Then at the conclusion of the war we have the Proclamations of President Johnson on April 2, 1866 and his Proclamation of August 20, 1866. That proclamation also informed the nation that Texas and the United States were at peace and the civil war was officially over. The 13^th Amendment had been submitted to fully functional legislatures of the Southern States the preceding year and been ratified on December 6, 1865 by twenty seven States and proven by a Proclamation from Secretary of State Seward on December 18, 1865.

This also supports the objectives of the Resolution of the House of Representatives and Senate of 1861 had been achieved; now if only the 40^th Congress would see it that way our history surely would have taken other directions.

The Union had been returned to a Constitutional Republic as evidenced by the 13^th Amendment and the presidential proclamations of 1865 and 1866…

Congress was now going to use all the delegated and usurped powers that they could to impress on the Southern States an absolute despotism and the tyranny of martial law to force these States and people to approve the 14^th Amendment by force of arms. They have taken a course that few despots had only dreamed of when they with the corruption of law, comity, fair play and honor forced their will on ten Southern States and People; it would lead to the impeachment of Andrew Johnson as well as this Congress coming off the rails as we will soon see.

The Reconstruction Act of 1867

This Act of Congress was vetoed by President Johnson on March 2^nd 1867 in language that was so disturbing that it shocks the senses even today; it should be read in its entirety to grasp the full measure of the depravity that this Congress held for the Constitution, the Southern States, the President and anyone that got in their way…

Here is a sampling from Johnson’s veto and his point is well taken as he had proclaimed in August of 1866 that the nation was at peace and that civil order had been restored throughout the nation. He discusses that the courts both State and federal are open and that they are under proper authorities, and yet Congress will place ten Southern States under martial law and disband their legislatures and replace them with ones that will do the bidding of congress and their military governors:

Johnson then goes on to remind Congress that our Constitution under Article IV Sec. 4 guarantees each State a Republican form of government and that this Act of Congress will wipe that away for their own desire for revenge for not ratifying the joint resolution of Congress for the 14^th Amendment. He discusses the dissolving of their duly empowered legislatures (the same ones that had ratified the 13^th amendment in 1865) and the creation of military districts which will be overseen with absolute authority by military governors with the dictatorial powers of an absolute monarch:

He then tries to implore and reason with them, and that there may still be some better Angels among them as he asks them to consider that it is the Constitution that they have taken an oath to protect and defend, and this mere instrument of governance is now laying at their feet in shreds if they proceed with this dastardly plan to disenfranchise nine million citizens of their Constitutional rights:

The House overrides his veto by a vote of 173 for, 4 against and 14 abstaining in the House of Representative, the Reconstruction act with all the despotism and tyranny that Congress could muster is passed by the House, the Senate followed. This left the Southern States to be divided up into five military districts, their legislatures dissolved and martial law imposed on these Southern States:

District:          State(s):                                  Commanded by:

First                 Virginia                                        Gen. John Schofield

Second            North & South Carolina            Gen. Daniel E. Sickles

Third               Georgia, Florida, Alabama       Gen. John Pope

Fourth             Mississippi & Arkansas            Gen. Edward Ord

Fifth                 Texas & Louisiana                     Gen. Philip H. Sheridan

These military governors and commanders had over 200,000 men under their command to carry out the orders of Congress during this period; they also dissolved the legislatures in the States above.

The irony is that in 1863 Lincoln laid out the conditions for their reentry in Union in his No. 11 Proclamation dated December 8, 1863. On May 29, 1865 the government of North Carolina had been re-established by Proclamation of President Johnson, he did the same for Mississippi on June 13, 1865, and Georgia on June, 17, 1865, Alabama on June 21, 1865, South Carolina on June 30, 1865, Florida on July 18, 1865, all of these States ratified the 13^th Amendment.

These were fully functional governments that had been dissolved and reconstituted by Congress so that they could force the Southern States to ratify the 14^th Amendment. These military governors set about their work with the determination of men on fire and appointed new legislators in these States Houses that would do the bidding of Congress and subsequently they took up the failed joint resolution of Congress for the 14^th Amendment and recycled it as if it had never had any previous consideration in 1866.

It was ratified by what become known as rump legislatures as follows:

Arkansas on April 6, 1868.
North Carolina on July 2, 1868.
Florida on June 9, 1868.
Louisiana on July 9, 1868.
South Carolina on July 9, 1868.
Alabama on July 13, 1868.
Georgia on July 21, 1868.

Secretary of State Seward was hesitant to issue a Proclamation that announced the passage of the 14^th Amendment as it had been done at the point of a bayonet after disenfranchising nine million citizens in the Southern States and his Proclamation of July 20, 1867 shows the gravity of his misgivings. He discussed the newly established legislatures and there ratification which in his mind is “questionable” in the Southern States and the withdrawal of ratification by Ohio and New Jersey:

Seward uses then uses the word “avowing” as if this statement is true, however; why did he choose this word if not to raise a question in the readers mind, after all he alluded to the fact as these are “newly constituted” and not the same legislatures that had been reestablished by Presidents Lincoln and Johnson from 1865 when the 13^th Amendment was ratified. Is he saying in fact that they are different…?

Then we have question of Ohio and New Jersey withdrawing their ratification of the amendment and that he is unable to pass judgment on this fact: As a matter of law until the amendment is in fact passed a State has the right to withdraw its resolution of ratification, after the fact would be too late, though Secretary Seward has in fact received this resolution and he is unable pr unwilling to effectuate the desire of these two States… It is the States that ratify in Article V, not the federal government; the States are sovereign under Article IV, Sec 4. They have the power to determine these matters; they control the ratification process and their resolution(s) of same. The facts in this matter are clear the 14^th Amendment has failed once again, as the count now is only twenty seven States with Ohio and New Jersey’s withdrawals and Nebraska entered the Union in March of 1867 making the Union 37 States, and the requirement for ratification 28 States. The States that are under martial law are being extorted and forced to do the will of Congress, when we subtract all six, then we are left with only twenty one States that ratify this amendment, leaving Secretary Seward to question the outcome for this amendment.

The matter does not end here though, after seeing Secretary Seward’s Proclamation of July 20^th, Congress passes a joint resolution on the 21^st of July and directs the Secretary of State to certify fully 27 States have ratified the 14^th Amendment:This is good place to take a review of Article V and the powers that Congress has in this matter as they are limited to only housekeeping matters and that is, that they can “propose” amendments and specify their method of ratification, Article V:

“The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.”

That is the extent of their powers in these matters directing the Secretary of State to ignore the withdrawal of Ohio and New Jersey is beyond their Constitutional purview as they are only given housekeeping duties in this matter and ratification power is only given to the several sovereign States.

However Secretary of State Seward is kowtowed by Congress and issues his revised Proclamation on July 28, 1868, however he certifies thirty States with inclusion of the rump legislature of Georgia which ratified it on the 21^st of July 1868:

One has to wonder at this point whether this was done to guarantee that if Ohio and New Jersey challenged the ratification results since these States had withdrawn their ratification they still achieve the magic number of 28 or three quarters of the 37 States would be reached. It appears so. Another glaring issue is that the State count differs from the record in the House Journal for the concurring joint resolution which only shows 27 States, and the joint resolution in Secretary Seward’s proclamation of July 28th, shows the House certifying 29 states, absent is Georgia which the Rump legislature ratified on July 21st. Though there is a discrepancy between the House Journal and what was transmitted to Secretary Seward sometime on or before the 28th.

Gone are the concerns about the two states that have withdrawn their ratification and the legality of such, and the “newly formed governments” as well and we have a simple statement regarding New Jersey and Ohio’s withdrawal of ratification buried in the body of the proclamation showing dates of ratification and the resolution of withdrawal. Other than that he has a proclamation that did include the joint resolution of Congress of the 21^st of July, and his concurrence with the instructions contained within it:

This has been a tainted and unconstitutional process from the very start and it ends with a whimper of capitulation against a Congress that used despotism and tyranny to pass this amendment for what good it does. As the 39^th and 40^th Congress unleashes a fury of violence across the Southern States by their tyranny and made a mockery of the principles enshrined in the Constitution. So much so that Oregon withdraws its ratification by a rescinding resolution of the 14^th Amendment in October of 1868 on the grounds that it was:

“Fourteenth Amendment” had not been ratified by three fourths of the States and that the “ratifications” in the Southern States were “usurpations, unconstitutional, revolutionary and void” and that, “until such ratification is completed, any State has a right to withdraw its assent to any proposed amendment.”

Conclusion

The 14th Amendment was born in despotism and steeped in tyranny to suborn the Constitutional rights of this nation’s citizens both North and South with duly seated and recognized legislatures protesting this fact. The Joint Resolution of June 13, 1866 was issued by an unconstitutional Congress that did not have the mandate of this Union’s citizens when Congress refused to seat the Senators and Representatives from eleven Southern States and tainted the joint resolution from the outset. This was a Constitutional defect that could not be overcome by any Constitutional means; it was a nullity at that point as the States that been in rebellion had complied with the proclamations of Lincoln and Johnson and the resolutions of Congress for admittance back into the Union.
The joint resolution for the 14th amendment was rejected by a majority of States by early 1867 and enraged Congress which passed a series of Reconstruction Acts that was an utter despotism the likes of which had not been seen on this planet for hundreds of years before by the bitterest monarch. Law and the rule of law was suspended in the five military districts of Virginia, North & South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas, Texas and Louisiana as these States were placed under martial law and absolute despotism and coerced by the force of arms by the military commander of their district until such time as Congress felt otherwise and they passed the resolution.
The violence that these actions placed against the nation’s citizens by these unconstitutional actions at a time when no State, Territory or Possession was in rebellion or insurrection was a travesty of epic proportions as the Constitution was swept aside for mere political power, to gather then keep the vote of the freedmen in the Southern States. The Civil Rights Act of 1866 had granted privileges and immunities to the freedmen, making the 14th Amendment superfluous and unnecessary. The unconstitutionality of this amendment’s creation and the mischief it has caused since its corrupted impressing into our Constitution demands that it be ripped out by its poisonous roots and discarded before the Supreme Court can do more harm to this nation and people by the continuation of its use, which is in keeping with the depravity of its creation.
For a nation bound by the Constitutional principles found within its boundaries demands that this be done as we have a new threat that anything under the Sun will be found among its verbiage of an ever expanding 14th amendment becoming new principles in depravity. As it has only the boundary of the human mind to limit these newly found manifestations in Constitutional rights by a severely tainted court in conjunction with an unconstitutional amendment.
Congress has also been made aware of the unconstitutionality of this amendment in all its particulars and has chosen not to act, when in fact Sec. 5 of the 14th Amendment gives empowerment to Congress to enforce the provisions of this amendment.
Congress has allowed the courts and especially the Supreme Court to engage in amending the constitution by a panel of oligarchs in black robes that use it to their own ends; it is time this comes to an end.
In Liberty, while we can keep it…

Alan P. Halbert, CMBA
July 15, 2015

Back to Patriots & Tyrants Articles or HOME