Exploring the destruction of liberty

The next step in our journey along the path of discovery about why the Utah Supreme Court feels the 14^th Amendment is an element of destruction of state sovereignty, takes us into the Constitution for the Unites States of America. But before we go there I want to take a side path with a few related statements from the United States Supreme concerning citizenship. They should serve to bolster the understanding that citizenship status is very important for freedom to survive.

First, “The power of Congress to regulate naturalization under the 14^th Amendment of the Unites States Constitution does not include the power to restrict the effect of birth to constitute a sufficient and complete right of the citizenship as declared by the Constitution.” (emphasis mine) United States v. Wong Kim Ark

The main point of this ruling is that you and I, as natural born Americans, do not need the 14^th Amendment to lay claim to all of our constitutionally protected rights. Our rights as natural born American citizens exist just the same as they did prior to the creation of the special class of federal citizen created by Congress through the 14^th Amendment.

Next “In our country the people are sovereign and the Government cannot sever its relationship to the people by taking away their citizenship.” Afroyim v. Rusk

If it is true that the federal citizen operates under federal jurisdiction, different or even more so than the sovereign state citizen, then the government must still recognize the reality and existence of the sovereign state citizen and not try to remove that status in favor of another status (i.e. federal citizen). Review the Crosse v. Board of Supervisors of Elections from the previous post. Again, we do not need federal citizenship to have a proper relationship with our government.

Here is one that will bake your noodle. It is also from the Afroyim v. Rusk case. “The Fourteenth Amendment citizenship is one which a citizen keeps unless he voluntarily relinquishes it and, which, once acquired, cannot be shifted, canceled, or diluted at the will of the Federal Government, the states, or any other governmental unit.” Once you are a federal citizen nobody can take it from you – but you can relinquish it. You can give it up!

Finally, before we go on to the Constitution, here is a huge ruling. You need to let this one sink in – think about what it is telling you. “Privileges and immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects those rights peculiar to being a citizen of the federal government; it does not protect those rights which relate to state citizenship.” Jones v. Temmer (1993) (emphasis mine) Note the date of this statement.

Clearly, the High Court has stated that federal citizenship and state citizenship are two very different things and that the privileges and immunities clause only applies to federal citizens. What? If this be so then why do we constantly appeal to the 14^th Amendment to protect our rights? And why does, did, the Utah Supreme court think the Amendment was deleterious to state sovereignty?

Within striking distance,

The rattlesnake

Exploring the destruction of liberty

At the close of the last post I asked the question. If the rights of the citizens of the states are not under consideration in the 14^th Amendment then what type of citizen is under consideration in the Amendment? To answer this we must first understand precisely what the 14^th Amendment was designed to do. The United States Supreme Court of 1873, just five years after the creation of the amendment, gave us the reason for the amendment:

"The history and aim of the 14th Amendment is well known, and the purpose had in view by its adoption, well understood. That purpose was to confer the status of citizenship upon a numerous class of persons domiciled within the limits of the United States who could not be brought within the operation of the naturalization laws because (of being) native born; and whose birth, though native, had at the same time left them without the status of citizenship. These persons were not white persons, but were, in the main, persons of African descent who had been held in slavery in this country or, if having themselves never been held in slavery, were the native-born descendants of slaves." Van Valkenberg v. Brown (1872),43 Cal. Sup. Ct. 43, 47. (Emphasis added.)

Plainly the amendment was written to give to the black slaves a citizenship of some type. Since the states would not recognize the slave’s natural born status nor would the state allow for naturalization citizenship, these people were left with no legal status of any kind. Ergo, the congress, through the 14^th Amendment created a special class of citizen which came to be known as a resident or citizens of the United States. This citizenship status was a citizen of the federal government. So following the 14^th Amendment passage the country now had three types of legal citizenship statuses; natural born, naturalized and federal, citizenships. The statements of the high court in the following cases confirm this as fact.

“The term resident and citizen of the United States are distinguished from a Citizen of one of the several states, in that the former is a special class of citizen created by congress.” U.S. v. Anthony

“A citizen of the United States is a citizen of the federal government . . . “Kitchens v. Steele

“Both before and after the Fourteenth Amendment to the federal Constitution, it has not been necessary for a person to be a Citizen of the United States in order to be a citizen of his state.” Crosse v. Board of Supervisors of Elections (1966)

Now, after the 14^th passage, the term United States citizens could mean any one of three statuses. Note that the first two statuses are grounded in the sovereignty of the states but the special class of federal citizen is grounded in the jurisdiction of the federal government. Also note that the court was very clear that the citizenship resulting from natural born status in a sovereign state was specifically different from that of the federal citizen. And the die is cast for the iteration of the Utah Supreme Court.

How do these truths affect the sovereign rights of the states and individual people?

Within striking distance,

The rattlesnake

Exploring the destruction of liberty

“ In regard to the Fourteenth Amendment, which the present Supreme Court of the United States has by decision chosen as a basis for invading the rights and the prerogative of the sovereign states, . . . “

Supreme Court of Utah, March 22, 1968

Gerald J. Dyett v. John W. Turner

The 14^th Amendment is arguably the most misunderstood of all of the amendments following the first ten. What does the Utah High court mean, or refer to, with its bold statement? It means, plainly, that the 14^th Amendment in its current application(s), at least by 1968, which is not exactly ancient history, is being used to destroy the rights and Constitutional powers of the sovereign states. This is a remarkable statement, one that might be expected to emanate from the lips of a wild-eyed right wing anti-government type -- certainly not from a body as distinguished and learned as the Utah Supreme Court.

To obtain a grasp of the court’s meaning we must examine another statement made by the United States Supreme Court, one made just five years after the creation of the 14^th Amendment.

“The rights of Citizens of the States, as such, are not under consideration in the fourteenth amendment. They (the rights of the state citizens of the state) stand as they did before the adoption of the fourteenth amendment and are fully guaranteed by other provisions.” United States v. 24 Federal Cases (1873) emphasis mine.

Prior to the 14^th Amendment there existed two citizenship statuses in America; the natural born citizen and the naturalized citizen. Both of these statuses originated in the states. A person was first a citizen of a sovereign state and ipso facto, citizens of the United States by virtue of the nexus between the states and their agent the United States. The “other provisions” spoken of are the provisions of the Constitution for the United States of America. If the state citizens are protected by the Constitution of the Unites States, but the 14^th amendment does not take these citizens into consideration with it’s articulation of rights, then who, or better asked, what citizen is the 14^th Amendment considering? The answer to this question is the crux of the Utah Supreme Court’s statement.

I will reach into this topic on the next blog post. Stay tuned.

Within striking distance,

The rattlesnake

Veterinarian health care: Are you ready?

Evolutionary teaching, which instructs us that man kind is nothing more than a higher evolved animal, is coming full swing into our health care issues in America. Our current president, congress, media and academia, if they have their way, will see it done.

The bedrock of ethics for our medical system is the Hippocratic Oath which says “Above all, do not harm.” It is the well being of the patient that drives all of the decisions a doctor or nurse makes in medial issues. Why, because the value of human life exceeds all other considerations in human medical care – not money. In contrast, veterinarian medicine requires the will of the payer to determine the level and quality of care for the animal. A pet owner may choose to operate on fluffy to fix that problem, or the owner can choose to put fluffy down, i.e. kill fluffy. It is the prerogative of the payer/slash owner, not the well being of fluffy, that is the paramount consideration in the health care of animals. Why, because animals do not approach the value of humans. A three thousand dollar operation on fluffy may just be too much for the owner to pay to keep fluffy alive. Given the choice between making the house payment and saving fluffy, most right thinking humans on a budget are going to choose the former. Who is going to tell them they can’t make this choice? Well maybe the city of Boulder put let stay on this planet.

If we go fully down this road, I say fully because we are all ready part way down that path now with the control HMO’s have over patient coverage, to the system President Obama and Congress seem to want , we will be experiencing veterinarian care very soon. However, is that not apropos considering the fact that for a solid eighty years we have been teaching our populace that they are nothing better than animals? Are you ready to be treated as an animal by your master and owner the federal government?

Double standards

Behind every confessed double standard there is an unconfessed single standard. World view trumps everything. People are stumped, for example, about how the feminists could support an obvious womanizer like Bill Clinton. The double standard was glaring. The single standard is that both the leaders of the feminists and Bill Clinton hold a liberal, pro-Marxist, anti-America world view. So the feminists “put up with” Clinton’s obvious disrespect for women because he advances their single standard cause. The federal media is a prime example today of this truth. Why do the predominant national media give the likes of Barney Frank a pass on running a homosexual prostitution ring out of his Senate office, and hammer a conservative for walking too close to a strip joint? One would think that the media would be smart enough to not allow such a vibrant double standard to exist. How can folks who claim to support life by protecting whales and baby eagles, but do nothing when infant humans are murdered by the millions? The double standard is clear. However, the single standard is driven by their world view. They are not pro-life they are actually anti-human. They do not believe in protecting life, they really believe in controlling life – and if murder is what it takes, they will use it. So, when you experience or encounter an unmistakable double standard, look to the person’s under lying world view and it will reveal the hidden single standard. Look at Obama's economic plans for this nation -- look at them carefully.

No cowards allowed

“A culture that does not aspire to the divine becomes obsessed with the fascination of evil, reveling in the frivolous, the depraved, and the bestial.” George Gilder’s review of The Devil’s Delusion. National Review. May 5, 2008.

The wicked freely strut about when what is vile is honored among men. Psalms 12:8 NIV

A wise man attacks the city of the mighty and pulls down the stronghold in which they trust. Proverbs 21:22

When the communists entered Romania a gathering of all of the church leaders was called. One after another each got up and praised the communist take over and pledged their church’s support for the new regime; they exalted the communists as high power. One woman leaned over to her pastor husband, as his time to speak approached, and whispered to him “You must do something about this husband. They are dishonoring the name of our Lord”. Her husband turned to her and replied “If I do, you will loose your husband for ever.” She replied. “I would rather loose my husband than be married to a coward”. So Richard Wurmbrand stood and admonished his fellow clerics that only Christ was the Lord of the universe, not the communist party. Mrs. Wurmbrand did, for many purposes, loose her man that day as he predicted, for from that day forth he became a wanted man. Sabina Wurmbrand lost her husband but the world gained a hero. How many women in today’s western churches would spur on their man to such an act of courage? How many men would swallow their fear and obey to the utmost of their will?
Finally, consider this; Richard Wurmbrand’s statement, was it political? Absolutely, it was loaded with political meaning and power. After all the word politics comes from the Greek root word polis, which means rule of the city. Richard was only speaking the truth about who truly had the rule of Romania. Was his statement evangelical? Without a doubt! It extolled the glory of Christ and pointed those men who so easily succumbed to fear of pain, back to the one they were supposed to actually serve. It lifted the Christ to all in the room who did not know him. One cannot separate religion and politics. Where ever the truth of Christ may found is His rule, His kingdom.
Let us see the wicked freely strutting about in America and come together with courage to pull down their strongholds in any and every area of the kingdom of God.

America: Blessing or Curse

America: Blessing or Curse

The rattle snake was asked, just the other day, whether he thinks our constitutional republican form of government is a blessing or a curse. Since blessings and curses can only, truly, come from the ruler of the universe, the question’s implication must be whether or not God intended to bless or curse the peoples who would eventually live under the governance of such a form. The short answer to this question is that the rattlesnake believes our form of government is a blessing – from God!
The earliest settlers wanted, and needed, to be free of the capricious and duplicitous rule of “blue bloods” that, more often than not, used their birth right to grow their own wealth and power off the backs of the common man. When these royalty got really out of line they would mix their political power with conspiratorial church leaders and murder the people for various religious reasons. Often these murders were disguised as keeping the peace, but many times it was out right persecution of the true saints of the Kingdom of God. For more on this subject see Foxes Book of Martyrs.
The framers of our Declaration of Independence (the vision statement for America, if you will) and the subsequent Constitution (the business or action plan for carrying out the vision) understood all too well the dangerous consequence, illustrated in history, of the notion of the “divine right of kings.” See also the warnings presented in I Samuel chapter eight, by God to the Israelites about what a king would do to them. The framers purposely set out to create a form of governance that gave no human person any divine (i.e. unquestionable God ordained) power and authority to rule. They did a superb job! The American form of government was allowed, by God, to come into existence as a form where the “rulers” rule at the consent of the governed. Not only was it brilliant, it was the first of its kind in the history of the world. [Note: Rome always had an emperor who eventually set himself up as a god. Rome’s system was more dissimilar to ours than is similar]. No king, no emperor, no queens or princes, no bowing down before a man or women as if they were very god themselves. It is by far a blessing from the all powerful, all knowing, sovereign God of the universe. Either that or God said “oops, should have been paying a bit more attention to those folks in Philadelphia.”
The constitutional form of government truly allows for the rule of law, not of men, as the monarchy form did. It is not a democracy, so if 51% of the people want to do something against the law (remind the rattlesnake to define what law is in another blog entry) they can be stopped by courts and elected rulers who do know the law. If any one, or group of ones, attempt to accomplish something that is against the law, they can be stopped by the people. If the system of law is followed properly, there are checks and balances at every political juncture; from juries to the state houses. Now, of course, we know that it does not always work according to the plan of the Constitution, but that is not the fault of the Constitution. We cannot blame the blue prints for a house being built incorrectly.
The Lord of the universe decreed by His sovereign hand that this nation, America, would have a system of government unlike any other. It is truly a blessing that is worth fighting for and protecting. For some odd reason people in other countries seem to see, and understand this fact, more than the very people who live in America. If there is a curse it is a curse of wicked hearts, lazy complacency and the willful ignorance of God’s people entrusted with forwarding His kingdom.
The rattlesnake highly suggests that you, the perceptive reader, go to www.hillsdale.edu, click on the tab at the bottom called Imprimis, then go to Imprimis Archive. From there search by date for the January 2007 article entitled Freedom vs. Non-freedom: A view from Russia. by Andrei Illarionov. When you read the subsection called The Destruction of Freedom in Russia, juxtapose the words Russian people with the words American Christians. Now, spend some time thinking about what you think your Lord would have you to do.