Political News - Conservative Views -Join the Discussions
The 14th Amendment “Incorporation Cases” Violate the 10th and are Unconstitutional
Amendment 14, Section 1, in part:
“[N]or shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. . . .” (1868)
The 10th Amendment:
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
No provision in the Constitution has undergone more torture than the due process clause of the 14th Amendment. In the name of due process, the court in the late 1800s and early 1900s struck down all sorts of state economic regulation.  The rationale for all these decisions was that due process had a “substantive element”—that due process protected economic freedoms, such as “liberty of contract”, from legislation infringing upon those substantive freedoms. 
Despite the fact that those rulings have mostly been explicitly or implicitly overruled,  the modern court itself has continued to commit the same sins of its forbearers. Using the rubric of due process, the modern-age court has superimposed its own substantive content onto due process, among other things holding that due process prevents states: from permitting voluntary prayer in schools,  from prohibiting abortions,  from criminalizing distribution of pornography,  from using incriminating evidence (usually drugs) seized without warrant or probable cause,  from using incriminating confessions obtained without having first advised the defendant of a right to a lawyer and a right to remain silent,  from criminalizing flag burning;  and restricting states from imposing the death penalty,  to name some of the more prominent rulings.
One I suppose could agree, as a matter of policy, with the results of at least some of those cases, one ought beware of accepting them as a matter of law, for the “reasoning” in the cases, as I shall attempt to show here, is wholly unsound and has led to all manner of federal intrusion into matters reserved to states and subject only to state constitutional laws.
Neither the earlier, nor the modern approach, withstand scrutiny. As Professor Raoul Berger has noted, “on the eve of the [Constitutional] Convention [of 1787], Alexander Hamilton [described due process as having] ‘a precise technical import, and [is] only applicable to the process and proceedings of courts of justice; . . . never . . . to an act of the legislature.’” 
Continue reading at https://douglassbartley.wordpress.com/2012/03/22/the-14th-amendment...
Article IV, Section 4
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence.
Article IV, Section 4
The Court and Constitutional Interpretation - Supreme Court
The Court is the highest tribunal in the Nation for all cases and controversies ... as well as in maintaining a "living Constitution" whose broad provisions are ...
"The complex role of the Supreme Court in this system derives from its authority to invalidate legislation or executive actions which, in the Court’s considered judgment, conflict with the Constitution. This power of "judicial review" has given the Court a crucial responsibility in assuring individual rights, as well as in maintaining a "living Constitution" whose broad provisions are continually applied to complicated new situations."
Supreme court https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/constitutiona...
Living Constitutionalism on the Supreme Court’s Website
by Mike Rappaport
Six years ago, I wrote a post about how the Supreme Court’s website adopted the language of the Living Constitution approach. (I had been expanding on a post by Eugene Volokh.) It was curious that Justices Scalia and Thomas, as well as other fellow travellers of originalism, including the Chief Justice, would allow this language to continue. At the end of the post, I wrote that “it will be interesting to see whether this is changed and if so, how long it will take.” I just checked back to see whether there had been a change, but none has occurred. That’s disappointing.
The website adopts many claims that are problematic from an originalist perspective. Some of these are problematic for their substance. Others are problematic because their connotations suggest living constitutionalism, even though they might technically be interpreted as accurate. In both cases, a Supreme Court that was trying to be even handed between originalism and nonoriginalism would have written these claims differently. Read more
ORIGINALISM VS. "LIVING DOCUMENT"
In 1775, The Revolutionary War between the Colonies and Britain began. In 1788, the Constitution became the undisputed law of the land after New Hampshire became the ninth and last state required to approve it.
In 1791, the first ten amendments, known as the Bill of Rights, were added to the Constitution in order to define and protect the rights of the American people.
The Constitution was not and is not a blueprint, guideline, or set of suggestions. This one document provides the ultimate law in the U.S. and more importantly mandates limits on the power of the federal government.
Since shortly after its ratification, judges have had to interpret this over 200-year-old document in countless cases. Laws are “struck down” if a particular judge believes the law is unconstitutional. The judicial belief in how to interpret the Constitution has been the center of controversy since the beginning. There are two primary views of how judges and the public interpret the Constitution. While the rest of the column is not riveting, it is vital information to understand as a citizen.
ORIGINALISM – As pointed out below by the Heritage Foundation, those who make, interpret, and enforce the law ought to be guided by the meaning of the Constitution as it was originally written. The vast majority of Originalists begin with the text of the Constitution, the words of a particular sentence or paragraph. Textualism considers the words of the document to be authoritive while keeping in mind the traditional American principles behind the text. (Think of the text of the 1st Amendment and the reasons why our freedom loving Founders wrote it.)
Admittedly, understanding the Founders’ original intent is not always a simple task. It can take tedious work and sometimes produces vigorous disagreement. However, Originalism is logically, as opposed to emotionally, the best way to interpret the Constitution for five fundamental reasons.
1. It binds and limits any particular generation from ruling according to the passion of the times.
2. It complies with the constitutional purpose of limiting government. It understands the several parts of the massive federal government have no legitimate existence outside of the Constitution.
3. It supports the separation of power between the three branches of government by limiting the power of the judiciary. It prevents the Supreme Court, and other courts, from “creating law” which is a reserved power for the legislative branch
4. It reflects the Founders’ understanding of the self-motivated impulses of human nature. The Constitution inherently works to frustrate those impulses while leaving open channels for changing (amending) the document as needed.
5. Most importantly, Originalism is not result-oriented. If a law is unconstitutional, then so be it. The Originalist is like Chief Justice Roberts’ description of the role of a judge; judges should be like umpires calling “balls and strikes.” “Umpires don’t make the rules, they apply them.” The Originalist believes that it does not matter which party wins or loses.
LIVING DOCUMENT - Originalism has seen a steep decline over the last century with the rise of the theory of the Constitution as a "living document" or “living, breathing document” with no fixed meaning, subject to changing interpretations according to the spirit of the times.
This popular theory turns the Constitution into an unwritten charter to be developed by contemporary values. The problem here is that for some people, it can be tempting to “create rights”, “take away rights”, focus on the desired end result, and inject personal views into a case.
The primary argument supporting a “living document” theory is that we live in changing times. How could the Framers have envisioned computers in the late 1770’s? Well, humans are creative and forward thinking. Jules Verne envisioned technology in the 1800’s that still does not exist today. While the requirements for obtaining a search warrant for a smartphone may not have specifically been contemplated by the Founders, technological advances certainly were.
Additionally, the Constitution already provides for a system to live, breath, and change. The document has been amended 26 times based on mistakes and the needs and desires of our ever-changing American society. The power to amend the Constitution, though necessarily difficult, is the primary reason the document has been able to survive the turbulent changes throughout the past 200 years.
The support and/or application of the “living document” theory creates inconsistent law, regionally based law, is arbitrary, and further politicizes the judiciary.
While Originalism does not remove controversy or disagreement, it does establish the Rule of Law. Without it, our country will eventually become entirely governed by the Rule of Men.
Democracy... while it lasts is more bloody than either aristocracy or monarchy. Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There is never a democracy that did not commit suicide. John Adams
Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/john_adams_136320
We the People: A Constitutional Republic, Not a Democracy
"Federal Constitution—which banished direct democracy from our federal mechanisms of governance"
Preserving Republican Governance: An Essential Government Functions Exception to Direct Democratic Measures
James Madison, writing in Federalist No. 10, observed the difference between a republic and a pure democracy. (1) Whereas a republic consists of a scheme of representative governance utilizing a deliberative process to legislate, a pure democracy gives legislative power directly to the public. (2) The Constitution embraces representative governance at the federal level (3) and also guarantees it to the states. (4) Yet with the increased prevalence of direct democratic measures, such as ballot initiatives and referendums, the structural lines between a republican government and a direct democratic government are being blurred, producing both structural and pragmatic consequences for state governments. Read more http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3374&...
The Birth of Direct Democracy: What Progressivism Did to the States
Government by Judiciary
Publication Year: 2012
The Justices, who are virtually unaccountable, irremovable, and irreversible, have taken over from the people control of their own destiny.
— Raoul Berger
It is the thesis of this monumentally argued book that the United States Supreme Court—largely through abuses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution—has embarked on "a continuing revision of the Constitution, under the guise of interpretation." Consequently, the Court has subverted America's democratic institutions and wreaked havoc upon Americans' social and political lives.
One of the first constitutional scholars to question the rise of judicial activism in modern times . . . show more
Published by: Liberty Fund https://muse.jhu.edu/book/18222
Berger & the 14th Amendement
Raoul Berger Law Journal Library
Article V Project to Restore Liberty
Exactly correct - the courts have used the language to void the 9th and 10th amendments and even State Constitutions. The 14th must go or we will live under federal tyranny and oppression forever. JMHO
typing in to follow....
Good work on find the information on the 14th - all can see how the Courts used the old trick of changing word meaning and using clauses to expand powers not stated.
If one reads the history of Chief Justice Marshall and two seminal cases where he created powers not give in Article III. Marbury V Madison and McCulloch V Maryland. He used all the tricks - gave the court the Judicial powers and the Judicial review powers. Again neither are in the Article III limits on the courts and are usurped powers.
One of the first orders of business in the communist manifesto is removal of all property from the people. But here's the point most common folks miss unless someone points it out to them; Jesus said render unto Caesar what is Caesars' because if you are stupid enough to remain under Caesars' skirt you deserve to have to pay the tax. The only way the government can "take" your property is with YOUR CONSENT. You consent to being a citizen / serf / debt slave / chattel in service to the UNITED STATES corporation and not America which is foreign to the U.S. and the respective States. You consent through the fraudulent social security contract. Make a public revocation of your name on all adverse contracts and then let them try to take something!!! A Man / Woman has the highest standing under God than anyone standing under the UNITED STATES skirt. The common law court of man / woman is the Superior Court and nobody can overturn a decision made in it. But you have no court as a Citizen and no rights. You are not a party to the Constitution because you are the slave to what it governs, the government. America is our Country, the Republic for which our Flag stands, not WalMart, or Pepsi, or any other corporation like the UNITED STATES. We allow them to fly our flag and represent us, we don't give them the whole farm.
The IRS - pfffft - show me the man named IRS with damage or injury making a claim on the stand before a jury or there can be no debt / guilt (same word in German). epic quash.... next!
The supreme court said in the Barron case that the bill of rights only applied to the Federal Government. Not the States thus the SC invented partial incorporation using the 14th no State Shall . .
Who killed the 10th amendment? Maybe there was a gradual killing of it but effectively the death blow was the 14th amendment. Getting the 14th amendment was the real reason for the civil war, per Lincoln's letter to Horace Greeley; http://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/lincoln/speeches/greeley.htm . So does that make Lincoln alone the murderer of our intended constitutional design?? No, it doesn't - because the 14th amendment was ratified 3 years after his death by the states - but the southern states were under the threat of no representation in congress if they didn't sign on. That alone says a lot about how important constitutional principles were to congress following the civil war. Can't get much more anti-constitutional intent than that. To Lincoln AND the then current congress the civil war was ALL ABOUT destroying the original intent and federal government design of the constitution and centralizing the power to the federal government. Now, what was congress' makeup during all this?? Here - http://history.house.gov/Institution/Party-Divisions/Party-Divisions/ you'll see that R party dominated congress in the 37th and 39th congresses, with the 38th congress' numbers not being so dominant due to the people electing opposition to the oncoming 14th amendment.
It was R party's most important mission of the era to get the 14th amendment ratified, centralizing power to fed/gov and effectively killing the 10th amendment.
Maybe we should look to John Marshall and his Supreme court cases of Marbury v. Madison (1803) and then McCulloch v. Maryland (1819). These created an usurped court power not given in the limits of Article III.
This case might be the most important of all but few talk of it - Fletcher v. Peck (1810). The first time a court ruled a State law unconstitutional?
It is all here and the reasons given are not in defending the Limits on the Federal government and ignores the limits of the tenth amendment on courts and the Federal government.
Here is more evidence of the courts overstepping the Constitutional limits of Article III.
Precisely why it is being passed on to get out of being governed by rules, statutes and codes and get back to being an American National the way you would be without the fraudulent social security contract. Go back to them and reclaim your estate!!! IRS Manual 22.214.171.124.2.2 - The estate is the social security number of the decedent. - An infant is a decedent until it receives a social security number. Any contract that does not have full disclosure from both sides is fraudulent. When they force us into social security we become wards of the State and civilly dead. When the judge comes in and they say "all rise", they are summoning the dead to rise and take their place. When you answer to your name you have admitted to being the defendant and consent to admiralty jurisdiction. The defendant is that all capital letter name on your social security card and you agree to be the trustee for it.
The only way to stop the madness is to revoke signature from all adverse contracts with a simple affidavit notarized and filed into public record. Then start taking the names of the trustees causing harm and hold them accountable in your common law court. We are all Kings without subjects when we are not subject citizens of a company titled UNITED STATES. You can only be their chattel by consent!!! When you consent to serving them, you cannot serve God too. You cannot serve two masters. The fraudulent contract knocks you out of the Covenant with God where we made Him King in the Declaration of Independence so we would not fall under the tyranny of another ruler or Country. Now we are going to consent that all away? Why? Did you?
As a beneficiary of the Public Trust I appoint the judge as Trustee and be done with it. The Clerk appoints the judge as Trustee of the constructive trust in any court case, therefore HE is the defendant until he can get the infant / idiot / ward of the State to admit that the all capital letter name / DEFENDANT is theirs. You are there on the matter as beneficiary of the Public Trust and appoint the judge Trustee. Presto - No more debt slave.... I think I need a new hat.
Caveat - It is much easier to just stay out of their jurisdiction by establishing your common law original jurisdiction with notarized legal documents like a living will / declaration of trust (You cannot self govern without letting your will be known. A Declaration of Trust sets out the living will with instruction regarding self-governing). Being an American National brings you back into the Covenant with God to make Him our King so we do not fall under the tyranny of the UNITED STATES monster created by a de facto congress. Cut it off and let it wither. We can do this ourselves.
I'm responding to your overall posting rather than a specific post;
We agree on something I often word as - Ultimately authority is yours and mine to give not others' to take. It's a natural fact as I see it, whatever the pressures - ultimately for one to have authority over another it must be given.
We are different though in that you are taking an active aggressive stand on the fact. Taking on a face-to-face fight I don't have in me, and I suspect few do. You have studied the legalities of it all and have committed to fighting the fight in a way that is commendable as far as I can tell. I actually do often suggest acting on the principle/natural fact that authority must be given, and often do myself, but I guess in more of a passive-aggressive way than you are. What you've learned and are doing are further than I'm capable of, best I can tell. I suspect in the end both methods will be necessary to win, among a plethora of other actions needed taken by the citizenry.
...anyways, I thought I'd post to you that you have some direct agreement here on the natural fact that ultimately authority must be given, even though I'm not capable of taking the fight as head on as you are. Count me as a supporter of your efforts, and a promoter of what appears to be the core principle you are standing on - that ultimately authority must be given to be taken.