The Case of the 14th Amendment

The United States of America should and must guarantee our unalienable rights in accordance with the Declaration of Independence and the First Ten Amendments to the Constitution.  I believe that many thinking Americans, and there are many, depend on this and believe it to be the true law of the land.  It's pretty simple, easy to understand, and I see examples of its validity, existence, and duration in every-day life.

The case of the 14th Amendment really muddies the waters.  Its proper ratification is questionable ("consent of the governed"?) and the text is subject to much interpretation.  Here is my understanding of our situation:

The 14th Amendment to the Constitution was adopted by Congress on the heels of the Civil War, and there were certainly power-motivated hidden agendas behind its formulation, proposal and passage.  On the surface anyway, its purpose was to declare all of us citizens of the United States, including the freed slaves.  It acknowledged that we were also citizens of our respective state.   It reinforced the United States government dominance over the State governments,  stipulated representative apportionment for the Federal and State governments, disqualified for public office those engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the United States, validated the public debt of the United States, but forbade any payment on debt supporting insurrection or rebellion, and affirmed the right of Congress to enforce the provisions of the amendment.

I observe that most of the English language, as well as our minds, are only qualitative in nature.  English definitions and usage rarely have the specificity that we enjoy when using the language of mathematics, which is predominately quantitative.  But alas, English is all we have.  So power goes to the lawyers and to our grand manipulators in Congress and in government.

So I have to be careful of the trap most fundamentalists fall into.  Extremist factions within the three middle eastern religions of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, hang on to a meaning of each word to suit, regardless of its translational history, its origin, and how common folks might interpret it.  Then they pray to the dogma they have created, just like "truthers", "global warmingers", and "flat earthers".

Similarly, lawyers desperate to win their cases will frequently rationalize arguments and "wordsmith" meanings to suit.   In the absence of absolute quantitative definitions, they affect final decisions through court action that become precedents.   Then of course, this is in their "tool box" and can become law.   It's a mathematician's nightmare because for the most part, there is no frame of reference, and no way to ensure objectivity.   All we have here is subjectivity.  I think Winston Churchill's comment about our form of government applies quite well.

So we seem to have dual citizenship that is in mutual conflict since one is subordinate to the other.  We are citizens of the State (country) in which we were born and have allegiance to it.  But the 14th Amendment naturalizes us as citizens of the United States nation and at least implies that we only have allegiance to it and all of its States.  Remember the "Pledge of Allegiance" uses the words, " to the Republic" and  "one nation".   So what happened to the Constitution and alleigance to our country which was the State (nation) in which we were born?   The 14th Amendment is in direct conflict with the Constitution.  And, the Constitution is still in effect!  So, when we vote in a national U. S. election, we demonstrate our insurrection and rebellion against our own native country, our State, which is treason according to the United States Constitution.  The 14th tramples the 10th Amendment to the Constitution.  In fact, it tramples over the entire Constitution in spite of the appearance of good intentions.

But most Americans don't realize this interpretation of the 14th Amendment, don't even think it is the law of the land, and don't care.  They believe that the Declaration and the Bill of Rights is the law.  Most Americans would think that this word exercise is "horse hockey" as colonel Potter would say.  I would say that this interpretation is typical of those who would fall into the trap of the fundamentalists.   And, the "blood sucking" lawyers would love to generate legal briefs for a frolicking good time.  But I don't think itís practical to assert that we are alien to the United States since our Constitutional allegiance is only to our State of birth.  It's a huge conceptual "stretch" and invoking the idea would be way past a metaphorical "statute of limitations".

I believe our best chance to preserve our unalienable rights is to remove the liberal scourge from the Democrat controlled Congress, and remove the failed Obama Administration.   We Americans are in the process of taking back our country as many patriots are now converging on Washington D.C. to demonstrate their distain for the fiscally and ideologically irresponsible Congressional Leaders and the President.

But continue the fight for Liberty . . . ANY WAY YOU CAN!

Fred Arbogast

Arnold, CA

September 8. 2009