The Black Vault

That's it? That is supposed to count as a post?

Why don't you give us the condensed version at least.

Hell, even state whether or not you agree with the article. The entire thing or do you have any question or disagreement with any details in it?

14th ammendment;

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.

If are born in or naturalized then you are a citizen, no exceptions. Certainly no one can object to this provision? Right?

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.

Hmm, if your state has more people then your state gets greater representation in gov't. Seems quite fair to me.
Who gets to vote spelled out.

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.

Can't abide the oath of office, don't get to take the oath of office
. Pretty fair IMO

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.

You want to belong to the USA then you cannot work to war with the USA.
This is a problem?

Section. 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article

Congress, not the executive office polices the powers. That seem appropriate.

AO thinks that this is unconstitutional becasue the states do not ratify it by 75% majoriety. What he doesn;t know, AND THIS IS A GREAT EXAMPLE OF IGNORANCE OF THE LAW, is that there are several landmark US Supreme court cases, dealing with the status of several ammendments that were not fully ratified. Not just his ammendment(assuming his information is even correct.), but several others where full ratification was not completed. Those cases have upheld, that if a deadline was not set on an ammendments passing, it would remain in effect essentially indefinatly and could be valid to enact, BUT STILL PENDING FULL RATIFICATION. The ratification he is talking about is the full and final one. The % to introduce an Ammendment by 3 diifferent processes, is a lower 2/3rds majoriety. Therefore the Ammendment is valid and remains pending FULL RATIFICATION, and is a active Ammendment. The only inactive Ammendment I think is the 18th, because it was superceeded by the 19th. All others are either fully ratified, while 4 remain Pending, and the 14th is not one of them. THAT MAKES IT TOTALLY CONSTITUTIONAL, AS IT WAS RULED BY THE SUPREME COURT.

THE IDEA THIS 14TH AMMENDMENT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL IS LEGALLY UNFOUNDED, AND HAS BEEN RULED ON BY THE US SUPREME COURT.

AO the most complex issues in our court system happen to be Constitutional law. The theory behind this websites opinion is totally wrong. Look it up, its easy to find the landmark cases. You really do not understand this law, the laws of the states passing those "civil war" ammendments, nor the laws concerning the conflicTs and legal issues of Oathkeepers to an active duty serviceman. You really should stop wasting your time with halfcocked legal conclusions that are wrong.

AO thinks that this is unconstitutional becasue the states do not ratify it by 75% majoriety. What he doesn;t know, AND THIS IS A GREAT EXAMPLE OF IGNORANCE OF THE LAW,

I created this thread for a reason (that reason has now just been verified) I have not commented on the Constitutionality or the Unconstitutionality of the 14th Amendment nor will I but I am going to comment on Greeney2's comments.

Greeney2, among the numerous occupations he claims to have held now adds Mind Reader (not a good one though) to his seemingly endless resume`.
Does this mean he has actually done all of these jobs or does it mean he can't hold a job? It is not for me to say nor will I ...i just posed the question.

If the lap dogs ( you all know who you are) want to believe Greeney2's ascertains about me that is their choice but I need to point out a couple of things you may not be aware of.

Not only is Greeney 2 telling everyone what I am (suposedly) thinking he is by his post trying to put thoughts into my brain as opposed to words in my mouth.

Greeney2's tactics it appears, are also straight out of the PsyOps and Counter-Intelligence manuals used by the Military and various Alhapbet agencies which are used to control the media, and the general populace by concerted dis-info by those who wish to control or those are truly in control behind the scenes.

I also think Greeney2 is employing tactics reminiscent of those employed by the NWO...which makes me wonder if Greeney2 is a puppet for the PTB or at a level that he granted certain powers.

We are all aware of the members of this board who are Masons but what a lot of you don't realize is that the Masons are part of the NWO controlled by the Illuminati which are in turn controlled by the Jesuit. But the grand deception goes deeper the Jesuit Order has been infiltrated and has been under the control of the Jews. (I will be posting on this in the near future) but I will only be posting links and offering no comment. And I can already predict the comments now from the isolationists in here and the screams of antisemitism and their outrage regardless).

What Greeney2's posts in this thread is all about is about what I believe is to be his need to dominate and control people on these boards ..whether or not this is translated into his life off screen only the people who live with him or indeed close associates would know.

I also believe that is Greene2's way of having the reasonable people take a skewed view of me and obliviously view me in a negative way.

While others posted responses directly related to the thread Greeney2 opens with what I am supposed to think, explains why to further cement his position with you..the people seems to want to dupe and control by complete falsehood... Remember I only posted the link I did not offer opinion or comment.

He then closes by saying:

THE IDEA THIS 14TH AMMENDMENT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL IS LEGALLY UNFOUNDED, AND HAS BEEN RULED ON BY THE US SUPREME COURT.

AO the most complex issues in our court system happen to be Constitutional law. The theory behind this websites opinion is totally wrong. Look it up, its easy to find the landmark cases. You really do not understand this law, the laws of the states passing those "civil war" ammendments, nor the laws concerning the conflicTs and legal issues of Oathkeepers to an active duty serviceman. You really should stop wasting your time with halfcocked legal conclusions that are wrong.

Greeney2 puts thoughts in to my mind as people put words in peoples mouths and then attacks those thoughts (which are actually his in the first place) all the while pontificating and posturing saying I have these thoughts, once again to further cement in your minds that I don't understand laws, amendments and that I have halfcocked legal conclusions.

Remember I did not post any comments or opinion in this thread when I initiated it and nor have I now the only comments or opinions I have expressed are upon Greeney2's response to the topic. which, in itself on topic and a natural progression of the topic.

So, BV members .... who is the liar, Me or Greeney2?


Now you will hear the outrage at my response...and my point will further be proven.

Edited for spelling and copied into files in the event of deletion.

Whatever you say, you got me this time!

I retract the use of your name or implication you expressed an opinion whatsoever, about the subject at hand you posted, and simply say, apply everything I said concerning the issue, to the website in question. They are full of crap with their legal theory, for the reasons I stated. They are free to look up these landmark court cases, they are part of the Wikipedia coverage of Constitutional Ammendments.

Happy Now?

greeney2 wrote:Whatever you say, you got me this time!

I retract the use of your name or implication you expressed an opinion whatsoever, about the subject at hand you posted, and simply say, apply everything I said concerning the issue, to the website in question. They are full of crap with their legal theory, for the reasons I stated. They are free to look up these landmark court cases, they are part of the Wikipedia coverage of Constitutional Ammendments.

Happy Now?

Whatever I say? Hmm. Yes indeed you have been caught "with your hands in the cookie jar" as it were

I got you this time? So are you admitting that you have done this before and that you will do it again with a hope of not being caught out again?

Indeed, does this mean this is your standard Modus-operandi?

You retract the use of my name and implications I expressed an opinion...how noble of you indeed.

I note the blatant absence of any form of apology and indeed any assurance that such behavior will not occur in the future...I note there appears also the complete lack of contrition on any level by you for what could only be describes as scandalous behavior for anyone in a position of authority.

I would go so far as to say that if an elected official of government or indeed the head of a government agency were to be caught in the act ...such as you have been caught ...Not only would he or she have to retract it but would be forced to resign while apologizing profusely and showing at the very least some form of contrition or face impeachment or criminal charges respectively or both.

Being that your actions were done in public, I would therefore expect a public apology...should I hold my breath or not??

You refer to Wikipedia as the end all and be all source on the topic however there are other sites and sources of highly regarded reputation that I will now refer people to, to further this topic.

The sites:

http://www.civil-liberties.com/cases/14con.html (Congressional Records)

http://www.constitution.org/14ll/no14th.htm (U.S News and World Report)

[url]
http://www.princeton.edu/~lawjourn/Fall97/II1gupta.html[/url] (Princeton University Law School)

http://www.lawresearchgroup.com/cart/catalog/The-Unconstitutionality-of-the-14th-Amendment-p-81.html (Law Research Group)

http://www.sweetliberty.org/fourteenth.amend.htm (Constitutional Convention - Judge L. H Perez)

NOTE: Post copied and kept in my personal files

Once again the links are posted without comment, other than to say the sources are of high credibility.

So, AO, you posted the link for what purpose? Information to the members here?

Same reason you post the other, above links?

What are we, on this internet forum, to do with this information then if you do not intend there to be a discussion?

Perhaps you wish to simply watch others discuss the topic, is that it?

Shall we start with the first section?
If you are born in the USA or naturalized, then you are a citizen with all rights of a citizen, no exceptions.

Does anyone have an objection to section 1? Are there any problems with section 1?

The bottom line JayDee is that the legal theory behind this is bunk! This Amendment is legal, it is Constitutional, and it is in force. The Supreme Court has addressed all issues of Amendments that are in "pending" full ratification status, but are actively in full force. Another tread concerning the IRS is another misconception. Thousands of people have thought they could legally not pay thier income taxes based on that theory, and got proscuted for Income Tax evastion.

Congressional Record -- House

June 13, 1967 H7161

THE 14TH AMENDMENT -

EQUAL PROTECTION LAW OR TOOL OF USURPATION

(Mr. Rarick (at the request of Mr. Pryor) was granted permission to extend his remarks at this point in the Record and to include extraneous matter.)

Mr. RARICK. Mr. Speaker, arrogantly ignoring clear-cut expressions in the Constitution of the United States, the declared intent of its drafters notwithstanding, our unelected Federal judges read out prohibitions of the Constitution of the United States by adopting the fuzzy haze of the 14th Amendment to legislate their personal ideas, prejudices, theories, guilt complexes, aims, and whims. Through the cooperation of intellectual educators, we have subjected ourselves to accept destructive use and meaning of words and phrases. We blindly accept new meanings and changed values to alter our traditional thoughts. We have tolerantly permitted the habitual misuse of words to serve as a vehicle to abandon our foundations and goals. Thus, the present use and expansion of the 14th Amendment is a sham--{H7162} serving as a crutch and hoodwink to precipitate a quasi-legal approach for overthrow of the tender balances and protections of limitation found in the Constitution.

But, interestingly enough, the 14th Amendment--whether ratified or not--was but the expression of emotional outpouring of public sentiment following the War Between Our States. Its obvious purpose and intent was but to free human beings from ownership as a chattel by other humans. Its aim was no more than to free the slaves.

As our politically appointed Federal judiciary proceeds down their chosen path of chaotic departure from the peoples' government by substituting their personal law rationalized under the 14th Amendment, their actions and verbiage brand them and their team as secessionists--rebels with pens instead of guns--seeking to destroy our Union.

They must be stopped. Public opinion must be aroused. The Union must and shall be preserved. Mr. Speaker, I ask to include in the Record, following my remarks, House Concurrent Resolution 208 of the Louisiana Legislature urging this Congress to declare the 14th Amendment illegal. Also, I include in the Record an informative and well-annotated treatise on the illegality of the 14th Amendment--the play toy of our secessionist judges--which has been prepared by Judge Lander H. Perez, of Louisiana.

The material referred to follows:

H. Con. Res. 208

A concurrent resolution to expose the unconstitutionality of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States; to interpose the sovereignty of the State of Louisiana against the execution of said amendment in this State; to memorialize the Congress of the United States to repeal its joint resolution of July 28, 1868, declaring that said amendment had been ratified; and to provide for the distribution of certified copies of this resolution.

Whereas the purported 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution was never lawfully adopted in accordance with the requirements of the United States Constitution because eleven states of the Union were deprived of their equal suffrage in the Senate in violation of Article V, when eleven southern states, including Louisiana, were excluded from deliberation and decision in the adoption of the Joint Resolution proposing said 14th Amendment; said Resolution was not presented to the President of the United States in order that the same should take effect, as required by Article I, Section 7; the proposed Amendment was not ratified by three fourths of the states, but to the contrary fifteen states of the then thirty seven states of the Union rejected the proposed 14th Amendment between the dates of its submission to the states by the Secretary of State on June 16, 1866, and March 24, 1868, thereby nullifying said Resolution and making it impossible for ratification by the constitutionally required three fourths of such states; said souther which were denied their equal suffrage in the Senate had been recognized by proclamations of the President of the United States to have duly constituted governments with all the powers which belong to free states of the Union, and the Legislatures of seven of said southern states had ratified the 13th Amendment which would have failed of ratification but for the ratification of said seven southern states; and,

Whereas the Reconstruction Acts of Congress unlawfully overthrew their existing governments, removed their lawfully constituted legislatures by military force and replaced them with rump legislatures which carried out military orders and pretended to ratify the 14th Amendment; and,

Whereas in spite of the fact that the Secretary of State in his first proclamation, of July 20, 1868, expressed doubt as to whether three fourths of the required states had ratified the 14th Amendment, Congress nevertheless adopted a resolution on July 28, 1868, unlawfully declaring that three fourths of the states had ratified the 14th Amendment and directed the Secretary of State to so proclaim, said Joint Resolution of Congress and the resulting proclamation of the Secretary of State included the purported ratifications of the military enforced rump legislatures of ten southern states whose lawful legislatures had previously rejected the said 14th Amendment, and also included purported ratifications by the legislatures of the States of Ohio, and New Jersey although they had withdrawn their legislative ratifications several months previously, all of which proves absolutely that said 14th Amendment was not adopted in accordance with the mandatory constitutional requirements set forth in Article V of the Constitution and therefore the Constitution strikes with nullity the purported 14th Amendment.

Now therefore be it resolved by the Legislature of Louisiana, the House of Representatives and the Senate concurring:

(1) That the Legislature go on record as exposing the unconstitutionality of the 14th Amendment, and interposes the sovereignty of the State of Louisiana against the execution of said 14th Amendment against the State of Louisiana and its people;

(2) That the Legislature of Louisiana opposes the use of the invalid 14th Amendment by the Federal courts to impose further unlawful edicts and hardships on its people;

(3) That the Congress of the United States be memorialized by this Legislature to repeal its unlawful Joint Resolution of July 28, 1868, declaring that three fourths of the states had ratified the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution.

(4) That the Legislatures of the other states of the Union be memorialized to give serious study and consideration to take similar action against the validity of the 14th Amendment and to uphold and support the Constitution of the United States which strikes said 14th Amendment with nullity;

(5) That copies of this Resolution, duly certified, together with a copy of the treatise on "The Unconstitutionality of the 14th Amendment" by Judge L. H. Perez, be forwarded to the Governors and Secretaries of State of each state in the Union, and to the Secretaries of the United States Senate and House of Congress, and to the Louisiana Congressional Delegation, a copy hereof to be published in the Congressional Record. More at [url]http://community.theblackvault.com/phpBB3/posting.php?mode=reply&f=8&t=2928[/url]