Sept. 29, 2008
Good to see you. I subscribed to "Behold!" years ago and got your "Republic vs. Democracy Redress" series. I have a question about the 14th Amendment. Other than the attempts up to 1868, has anyone ever filed or attempted to file any case dealing with the Constitutionality of the 14th Amendment? I'm sure it has happened, but it was probably dismissed as a "frivolous issue". Thank you for your time.
Thanks for writing!
I don't know that anyone has challenged the constitutionality of the 14th amendment except for the people who used Behold! materials. All other "patriots" question the 14th amendment on a political level, claiming that duress was used against the southern states to get them to ratify it (no congressional seats until state ratifies the 14th amendment, continued military occupation of the south, etc.). There were a few books written on the unethical persuation used in ratifying the 14th as well as a court case in Utah which reviewed the ratification process of that amendment. This is similar to the more frequent challenges against the 16th amendment, that it was never properly ratified and therefore is void, which is found in several "patriot" books and many recent court cases.
However, these are all political issues and no judicial court will review the subject on that ground.
The only issue reviewable by a judicial court is that the supposed amendments are outside the scope of Congress' and the State Legislatures' powers to propose and ratify such an amendment. This issue is thoroughly discussed in the Essays section of this website. It is also important that the citizen challenging the application of the 14th amendment to himself has not somehow brought himself under its operation; this too is discussed in the Essays section as the importance of having the correct status before the court to make the challenge. For example, enrolling in social security would give a man the same legal status as those persons under the 14th amendment so his challenge to the constitutionality of the 14th amendment would be automatically considered "frivolous."
The concept of an amendment being "unconstitutional" is strange to most people because they assume that an amendment, no matter what it is, is automatically constitutional because it has been added to the constitution.
One such amendment was contested by a book written about the Eighteenth Amendment. Perhaps it's much easier to argue against something like prohibition than it is to re-examine what kind of citizenship was granted in the 14th amendment. The author of this book performed a detailed analysis of the 18th amendment as well as the proper powers granted to Congress in the original Constitution to show that it was not within the power of Congress to propose such an amendment. The challenge to the 14th amendment would be persuasively argued by this book merely by replacing the mention of the 18th amendment by naming the 14th amendment. The 18th amendment was repealed in its entirety by the 21st amendment. Perhaps Congress and the State Legislatures could be persuaded in repealing all of the post-civil war amendments by the overwhelming opinion of the educated masses. Perhaps I can do a book review and offer a reprint of the book on the website, providing I can take time from the animating contest of liberty called staying alive in a hostile legal environment.
I mention all of the post-civil war amendments because they each have the power clause, "Congress shall have power to enforce this amendment by appropriate legislation." Please see U.S. v. Rhodes (1866) for the importance of this power clause. The proposal and ratification of the 14th amendment as well as the coersion used in the process could be attributed to the power clause of the 13th amendment. To get the 14th amendment declared unconstitutional would also involve discussion of the invalidity of the other amendments bearing this power clause.
All so-called conservative, Christian, patriot-types today including preachers, TV commentators, talk show hosts, legal gurus and vote-seeking politicians cry for the administrators of the government to OBEY THE CONSTITUTION and UPHOLD THEIR OATHS OF OFFICE. These people do not realize, or perhaps they don't want to address the issue, that these administrators ARE obeying the constitution and ARE upholding their oaths of office because they ARE inflicting the 13th and later amendments on the public who takes it for granted that they are valid amendments and only intended for the benefit of the public. Such "patriots" are either ignorant, stupid or LIARS. Pick one.
I urge you to continue prayer, study and reflection on the importance of understanding law and how it is being used to subvert a nation. Please pass the web address along to other people for their education.