A majority of Americans take pride in their history
and heritage. Those principles, stated
in our Declaration of Independence and our Constitution, resonate to this day. However, I’m here to say Americans
unwittingly rejected those principles a long time ago.
Whatever you may think of the American Civil War,
the rejection of the Declaration of Independence was self-evident. The North invaded, defeated, and occupied the
South. Southerners who participated in
the rebellion were disenfranchised. They
were not allowed to hold public office or vote; therefore, they were at the
mercy of ravenous carpetbaggers and scalawags.
Life, liberty and property were in peril.
When in the Course
of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political
bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of
the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's
God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that
they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
The 14th
Amendment facilitated the disenfranchisement of the South, even though, it didn’t
pass constitutional requirements through the ratification process; yet, was
promulgated and enforced by radicals in Washington D.C.
Was the intent by
the authors of the 14th Amendment a repudiation of a limited central
government as was dictated by our founders?
The Bill of Rights was meant to restrain the central government, and
indeed was a prerequisite for ratification by the States; yet, those moorings
have been turned on the States. They’ve
become bound by the very tools they demanded as a means to protect themselves
from an abusive central government that they instinctively knew would abrogate
States’ sovereignty and self-determination.
Not only is the 14th’s
legitimacy in question, so is its intent.
Many unscrupulous politicians employ broad language to deceive the
general population. Section One is a perfect example of ambiguity in a law. Statists
argue that the 14th Amendment dictates that the Bill of Rights applies
to all States and not just the federal government; therefore, states’ laws and
constitutions will constantly be under the purview of the federal government. This is just the opposite of what our
founding fathers intended.
I ask, did northern
states willingly agree to abdicate self-governance and determination to a distant
capitol? Did they want an unaccountable
federal judiciary declare their laws and constitution, unconstitutional? I don’t think so.
So we are left with
intent vs. construction of the First Section in the 14th Amendment
of which the principle author is Congressman John Bingham of Ohio. Detractors state Bingham was a muddled
thinker, a confused man, and Section One is a reflection of the man himself.
I contend Bingham
was a typical politician who hid behind broad language to conceal his true
intent, and that is a strong central government that would wield power over the
states. If you read the rest of the 14th
Amendment, there is no ambiguity. Here
is the 14th Amendment:
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.
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.
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.
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.
Section 5.
The Congress shall have power to
enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article
There is no
ambiguity in subsequent sections.
Southerners who participated in the rebellion were not allowed to vote
or hold public office. Southerners were
forced to pay Northern war debt, including pensions for their soldiers, while
at the same time having to pay their own without any recourse from the federal
government. Yet, we are left with an
ambiguous Section One and a continuous debate about intent vs. construction.
I believe we know the
intent of its authors. It was to use
broad, ambiguous language as a means to shield politicians from the wrath of their constituents. Their true
intent was to unleash a central government
that would use its arbitrary authority to exercise power over states and its citizens. Ultimately, it was a repudiation of our
founding principles.
Source:
No comments:
Post a Comment