Bill of Rights

Congress of the United States
begun and held at the City of New-York, on
Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.

ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.

Note: The following text is a transcription of the first ten amendments to the Constitution in their original form. These amendments were ratified December 15, 1791, and form what is known as the "Bill of Rights."

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The 1st Amendment protects the people's right to practice any Christian religion they want to, or no religion at all, to speak freely, to assemble (meet) with others, to communicate with the government and of the press (newspapers, TV, radio, Internet) to publish.

Freedom of Speech and of the Press: The First Amendment allows citizens to express and to be exposed to a wide range of opinions and views. It was intended to ensure a free exchange of ideas even if the ideas are unpopular.

Freedom of speech encompasses not only the spoken and written word, but also all kinds of expression (including non-verbal communications, such as sit-ins, art, photographs, films and advertisements). Under its provisions, the media — including television, radio and the Internet — is free to distribute a wide range of news, facts, opinions and pictures. The amendment protects not only the speaker, but also the person who receives the information. The right to read, hear, see and obtain different points of view is a First Amendment right as well.

But the right to free speech is not absolute. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the government sometimes may be allowed to limit speech. For example, the government may limit or ban libel (the communication of false statements about a person that may injure his or her reputation), obscenity, fighting words, and words that present a clear and present danger of inciting violence. The government also may regulate speech by limiting the time, place or manner in which it is made. For example the government may require activists to obtain a permit before holding a large protest rally on a public street.

Freedom of Assembly and Right to Petition the Government: The First Amendment also protects the freedom of assembly, which can mean physically gathering with a group of people to picket or protest; or associating with one another in groups for economic, political or religious purposes.

The First Amendment also protects the right not to associate, which means that the government cannot force people to join a group they do not wish to join. A related right is the right to petition the government, including everything from signing a petition to filing a lawsuit.

Freedom of Religion: The First Amendment's free exercise clause allows a person to hold whatever religious beliefs he or she wants, and to exercise that belief by attending religious services, praying in public or in private, proselytizing or wearing religious clothing, such as yarmulkes or headscarves. Also included in the free exercise clause is the right not to believe in any religion, and the right not to participate in religious activities.

Note: yarlmulkes are actually Greek student caps. And Jews and Muslims (and the other races) were never intended by our race (and our God) to live among our race.
2Corinthians 6:14 ​​ Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?

1Kings 8:53 ​​ For You didst separate them from among all the people of the earth, to be Your inheritance, as You spakest by the hand of Moses Your servant, when You broughtest our fathers out of Egypt, O Yahweh GOD.

Ezra 10:11 ​​ Now therefore make confession unto Yahweh God of your fathers, and do His pleasure: and separate yourselves from the people of the land, and from the strange wives.

Second, the establishment clause prevents the government from creating a church, endorsing religion in general, or favoring one set of religious beliefs over another. As the U.S. Supreme Court decided in 1947 in Everson v. Board of Education of Ewing Township, the establishment clause was intended to erect "a wall of separation between church and state," although the degree to which government should accommodate religion in public life has been debated in numerous Supreme Court decisions since then.

*The text in this blue text is from annenbergclassroom.org

Why is the 1st Amendment trashed?

Athiests are serving in office.

Christianity is attacked and outlawed while Muslims and Athiests (and other religions) are allowed to assemble, gather and speak.

Christians cannot live a righteous life in society when society is running unrighteously and the righteous are forced to live as the unrighteous. Ex: Forced to marry homos, or bake them cakes. Share bathrooms with opposite gender. And so much more. And don't forget the growing 'anti-semitism' cry from the Jews, who are not even semites, nor are they Israel.

And don't forget the Politically Correct (PC) revolution.

​​ 

Separation of Church and State,

Thomas Jefferson and the First Amendment

Today, many Americans think that the First Amendment says "Separation of Church and State." The Courts and the media will often refer to a ruling as being in violation of the "Separation of Church and State." A recent national poll showed that 69% of Americans believe that the First Amendment says "Separation of Church and State." You may be surprised to learn that these words do not appear in the First Amendment or anywhere else in the Constitution! Here is what the First Amendment actually does say.

The First Amendment :

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

As you can see the First Amendment does not contain the words "Separation of Church and State". The First Amendment gives citizens the Freedom to Worship God without Government interference. Assures that the Government will not establish a State Religion. That people are free to speak their minds without the government arresting them. Granting citizens to publish news that may be critical of the government without fear of arrest or fines, and finely the right of citizens to peacefully gather together or march in rallies or parades.

So where did the words "Separation of Church and State." come from? They can be traced back to a letter that Thomas Jefferson wrote back in 1802. In October 1801, the Danbury Baptist Association of Connecticut wrote to President Jefferson, and in their letter they voiced some concerns about Religious Freedom. On January 1, 1802 Jefferson wrote a letter to them in which he added the phrase "Separation of Church and State." When you read the full letter, you will understand that Jefferson was simply underscoring the First Amendment as a guardian of the peoples religious freedom from government interference. Here is an excerpt from Jefferson's letter. . .

"I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State."

Jefferson simply quotes the First Amendment then uses a metaphor, the "wall", to separate the government from interfering with religious practice. Notice that the First Amendment puts Restrictions only on the Government, not the People! The Jew Earl Warren Court re-interpreted the First Amendment thus putting the restrictions on the People! Today the government can stop you from Praying in school, reading the Bible in school, showing the Ten Commandments in school, or have religious displays at Christmas. This is quite different from the wall Jefferson envisioned, protecting the people from government interference with Religious practice.

When Thomas Jefferson wrote his letter to the Danbury Baptist Association he never intended the words "Separation of Church and State" to be taken out of context and used as a substitute for the First Amendment, but for all practical purposes is what the courts have done.

If actions speak stronger then words, it is interesting to note that 3 days after Jefferson wrote those words, he attended church in the largest congregation in North America at the time. This church held its weekly worship services on government property, in the House Chambers of the U.S. Capital Building. The wall of separation applies everywhere in the country even on government property , without government interference. This is how it is written in the Constitution, this is how Thomas Jefferson understood it from his letter and actions, and this is how the men who wrote the Constitution practiced it.

"The metaphor of a wall of separation is bad history and worse law. It has made a positive chaos out of court rulings. It should be explicitly abandoned."Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, William Rehnquist

Also notice that there are two parts to the First Amendment that refer to religion: the establishment clause and the free exercise clause. Today much is said about the establishment clause but there is very little mention of the free exercise clause.

While the words "Separation of Church and State" do not appear in the U.S. Constitution, they do appear in the constitution of the former U.S.S.R. Communist State.

At the very heart of Jefferson's idea "Wall of Separation", is the notion that the government will not interfere with people's right to worship God. The very fact that the government has ruled to regulate religious practices, indicates that the government has crossed that "Wall of Separation."

While Congress has never passed a Law that Prohibits Prayer in School, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that it is Illegal for children to Pray in School because it violates the "Separation of Church and State" which is not in the Constitution. Their faulty reasoning is that Praying Establishes a State Religion, but in fact, this is really Citizens Freely Practicing their Religious faith in God. ​​ The Government would be establishing a State Religion if it forced all the children to pray to a God of one type of Religion or Denomination that they did not believe in. However, Prayer in School was always voluntary and students were free not to be a part of school prayers. Ruling that students can not Pray in School violates the Constitution of the United States by interfering with the Free Practice of Religion. Thus the Supreme Court rulings on School Prayer and Bible Reading are illegal as they violate the Constitution. Thus when the Supreme Court forbids students from praying before a football game asking God to protect the players in the game, the Court is exercising the very tyranny of the minority that our Forefathers tried to stop. The Highest Court in the land has failed to Safe-Guard the Peoples Right to Worship without Government Interference. We have Justices on the Supreme Court that either do not understand the Constitution and the Bill of Rights or have a very dishonest social agenda that they wish to impose on America. In either case they are not qualified to be Justices of the Supreme Court and should be Impeached by the Congress of the United States. (free2pray.info)

Lying Butcher Johnson and 501-C3

Most churches in America have organized as "501c3 tax-exempt religious organizations." This is a fairly recent trend that has only been going on for about fifty years. Churches were only added to section 501c3 of the tax code in 1954. We can thank Sen. Lyndon B. Johnson for that. Johnson was no ally of the church. As part of his political agenda, Johnson had it in mind to silence the church and eliminate the significant influence the church had always had on shaping "public policy."

Although Johnson proffered this as a "favor" to churches, the favor also came with strings attached (more like shackles). One need not look far to see the devastating effects 501c3 acceptance has had to the church, and the consequent restrictions placed upon any 501c3 church. 501c3 churches are prohibited from addressing, in any tangible way, the vital issues of the day.

For a 501c3 church to openly speak out, or organize in opposition to, anything that the government declares "legal," even if it is immoral (e.g. abortion, homosexuality, etc.), that church will jeopardize its tax exempt status. The 501c3 has had a "chilling effect" upon the free speech rights of the church. LBJ was a shrewd and cunning politician who seemed to well-appreciate how easily many of the clergy would sell out.

Did the church ever need to seek permission from the government to be exempt from taxes? Were churches prior to 1954 taxable? No, churches have never been taxable. To be taxable a church would first need to be under the jurisdiction, and therefore under the taxing authority, of the government. The First Amendment clearly places the church outside the jurisdiction of the civil government: "Congress shall make NO LAW respecting an establishment of religion, nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

Religion cannot be free if you have to pay the government, through taxation, to exercise it. Since churches aren't taxable in the first place, why do so many of them go to the IRS and seek permission to be tax-exempt? It occurs out of:

Ignorance ("We didn't know any better")

Bandwagon logic ("Everyone else is doing it")

Professional advice (many attorneys and CPAs recommend it)

(See more at http://hushmoney.org/501c3-facts.htm)

Amendment II

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Infringed, pp. Broken; violated; transgresses.

Infringe, v.t. infrinj'. [L. infringo; in and frango,to break. See Break.]

1. To break, as contracts; to violate, either positively by contravention, or negatively by non-fulfillment or neglect of performance. A prince or a private person infringes an agreement or covenant by neglecting to perform its conditions, as well as by doing what is stipulated not to be done.

2. To break; to violate; to transgress; to neglect to fulfill or obey; as, to infringe a law.

3. To destroy or hinder; as, to infringe efficacy.

The 2nd Amendment protects the right to own guns. There is debate whether this is a right that protects the state, or a right that protects individuals.

Right to Bear Arms: The principal debate surrounding the Second Amendment has been whether the right to use and buy guns belongs to individuals or only to a militia. Starting in 2008, in two cases, the Supreme Court accepted the view that Americans have the right to arm themselves for personal use in their home and applied it to federal, state and local laws. The courts have permitted the government to limit some rights of gun manufacturers, owners and sellers. Today, questions about the Second Amendment center on bans on assault weapons, mandatory background checks, waiting periods, and other restrictions on gun sales or use. Gun control legislation varies widely among the fifty states.

Christ was a supporter of the 2nd Amendment.

Luke 22:36 ​​ Then said He unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.

A well regulated militia. Militias were state entities of all free men capable of bearing arms against a common enemy. It doesn't say anything about a standing army or other entities. What were the well regulated militias? Paul Revere, Benjamin Franklin, Sam Adams, James Madison, farmers, bakers, candlestick makers. It's the people. You are the militia.

​​ "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

The meaning of "militia"

 ​​ ​​​​ The word "militia" is a Latin abstract noun, meaning "military service", not an "armed group" (with the connotation of plurality), and that is the way the Latin-literate Founders used it. The collective term, meaning "army" or "soldiery" was "volgus militum". Since for the Romans "military service" included law enforcement and disaster response, it might be more meaningfully translated today as "defense service", associated with a "defense duty", which attaches to individuals as much as to groups of them, organized or otherwise.

 ​​ ​​​​ When we are alone, we are all militia units of one. When together with others in a situation requiring a defensive response, we have the duty to act together in concert to meet the challenge. Those two component duties, of individuals to defend the community, and to act together in concert with others present, when combined with a third component duty to prepare to do one's duty and not just wait until the danger is clear and present, comprises the militia duty.

Real courage is found, not in the willingness to risk death, but in the willingness to stand, alone if necessary, against the ignorant and disapproving herd. — Jon Roland, 1976

​​ What distinguishes those engaged in militia from an army

• The authority for militia is any threat to public safety.

• Those active in militia are usually not bound for a fixed term of service, or paid for it.

• Those active in militia cannot expect arms, supplies, or officers to be provided to them.

• No one has the authority to order militia to surrender, disarm, or disband.

DICK ACT of 1902 ... CAN'T BE REPEALED (GUN CONTROL FORBIDDEN) - Protection Against Tyrannical Government

​​ 

CAN NOT BE REPEALED (GUN CONTROL FORBIDDEN) The Trump Card Enacted by the Congress Further Asserting the Second Amendment as Untouchable. The Dick Act of 1902 also known as the Efficiency of Militia Bill H.R. 11654, of June 28, 1902 invalidates all so-called gun-control laws. It also divides the militia into three distinct and separate entities. The three classes H.R. 11654 provides for are the organized militia, henceforth known as the National Guard of the State, Territory and District of Columbia, the unorganized militia and the regular army. The militia encompasses every able-bodied male between the ages of 18 and 45. All members of the unorganized militia have the absolute personal right and 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms of any type, and as many as they can afford to buy. The Dick Act of 1902 cannot be repealed; to do so would violate bills of attainder and ex post facto lawswhich would be yet another gross violation of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The President of the United States has zero authority without violating the Constitution to call the National Guard to serve outside of their State borders. The National Guard Militia can only be required by the National Government for limited purposes specified in the Constitution (to uphold the laws of the Union; to suppress insurrection and repel invasion). These are the only purposes for which the General Government can call upon the National Guard. Attorney General Wickersham advised President Taft, the Organized Militia (the National Guard) cannot be employed for offensive warfare outside the limits of the United States.

Why is the 2nd Amendment trashed?

The government is slowly chipping away from all angles to limit guns, ammo, magazines, type of gun, regulations, etc. They are also staging false flag events to sway the ignorant public. Sandy Hoax, Aurora shooting, etc.

On 4/17/13, we came four votes away from the United States

Senate giving our Constitutional rights over to the United Nations.

In a 53-46 vote, the senate narrowly passed a measure that will stop

the United States from entering into the United Nations Arms Trade

Treaty. Read below the 46 senators who voted with Barack Obama

and the United Nations to take this right away from us.

The Statement of Purpose from the bill read:

To uphold Second Amendment rights and prevent the United States

from entering into the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty.

The U.N. Small Arms Treaty, which has been championed by the

Obama Administration, would have effectively placed a global ban

on the import and export of small firearms. The ban would have

affected all private gun owners in the U.S., and had language that

would have implemented an international gun registry on all

private guns and ammo.

Astonishingly, 46 of our 100 United States Senators were willing to

give away our Constitutional rights to a foreign power.  This vote

could have REPEALED the 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution

without "We, the People" having any vote on the matter!

Here are the 46 senators that voted with Obama to give your 2nd Amendment rights to the U.N.

Remington is the oldest gun manufacturer in America.

Founded in 1816 by Eliphalet Remington in Iiion, NY as Remington and Sons.

Who owns Bushmaster, Remington, Marlin, and Dyncorp?

Cerberus Capital Management, L.P. is one of the largest private equity investment firms in the United States. The firm is based in New York City, and run by 50-year-old financier Steve Feinberg (a Jew). Former U.S. Vice President Dan Quayle has been a prominent Cerberus spokesperson and runs one of its international units.

Founded in 1992, Cerberus is named for the mythological three-headed dog that guarded the gates of Hades.

The company has been a very active acquirer of businesses over the past several years and now has sizable investments in automotive, sportswear, paper products, military services, real estate, energy, retail, glassmaking, transportation, and building products. In 2006, its holdings amounted to $24 billion.

On October 19, 2006, John W. Snow, President George (a Jew) W. Bush's second United States Secretary of the Treasury, was named chairman of Cerberus.

Note: Remington is not doing well. Something stinks. Could it be sabatoge? Planned mismanagement?

Back in 2008 three CEOs from major American companies were asked to go to Capitol Hill and testify before Congress about their foolish financial practices. You would think that people under the microscope for mismanaging money wouldn’t fly expensive private jets to meet with Congress—especially when they came to ask for public funds to help them restore their bankrupt businesses—but that’s exactly what they did.

One of these men was Robert Nardelli of Chrysler, who Cerberus Capital Management installed as the CEO about two years before that company filed for bankruptcy. As you likely know if you are reading Guns.com, Cerberus Capital Management owns Freedom Group, a gun making conglomerate that owns several popular brands of US firearms, chiefly Remington Arms and Bushmaster Firearms. What many people don’t remember however is that after the stunt he pulled in D.C. while begging for taxpayer dollars, Nardelli was given a CEO position at Remington for a couple months in 2012 before distancing himself from Cerebus, but not before he drastically changed Remington’s operations.

Now, why would anyone hire a CEO with that kind of track record—someone who drove a car maker into bankruptcy and who doesn’t really know anything about firearms? It makes no sense at all, does it?

It makes perfect sense when you know who the enemy is and what their 'mode of operation' is. They infiltrate, pollute, defile and destroy, while they get rich doing so, all the while chipping away at our freedoms, rights, traditions, morals, laws, God and country and Constitution.

A former Remington employee states that when Nardelli took over Remington, everything went downhill. With a CEO who didn’t understand the market, Remington started to cut costs by making cheap components and outsourcing labor and parts to the cheapest bidders. The quality was downgraded so more money could be made–at least that was the idea, but, as any gun guy or gal could have told you, it predictably backfired and these changes, in my opinion, have done irreparable damage to the brand.

The Jew destroys everything it touches. Eve, the torah (law), the Israelite priesthood, Christ, we children of Jacob, our country and government, our history and heritage and traditions. But, vengeance is Yahweh's!

Amendment III

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

The 3rd Amendment guarantees that the army cannot force homeowners house and feed soldiers.

The Third Amendment is intended to protect citizens’ rights to the ownership and use of their property without intrusion by the government. The drafters of the Constitution, like many other colonists, were resentful of laws, in place before the Revolutionary War, that allowed British soldiers to take over private homes for their own use. Thus, the amendment bars the government from forcing individuals to provide lodging to soldiers in their homes, except during war when the interest of national security may override an individual’s right of private property.

Rarely discussed in detail in Supreme Court decisions, the Third Amendment has more commonly been held up as evidence that the framers meant the Constitution to protect individuals from government intrusion into their homes, family lives and personal affairs.

What of ‘Posse Comitatus’?

By Gene Healy

This article appeared in the Akron Beacon Journal on October 7, 2005.

Having already wrecked a legendary American city, Hurricane Katrina may now be invoked to undermine a fundamental principle of American law: When it comes to domestic policing, the military should be a last resort, not a first responder.

On Sept. 26, President Bush urged Congress to consider revising federal laws so that the U.S. military could seize control immediately in the aftermath of a natural disaster, noting that “it may require change of law.”

What was going on? As few media outlets reported, Bush was sending troops door to door to confiscate weapons in the New Orleans area. Total violation of 2nd Amendment and Posse Comitatus.

The law the president seems to be referring to is the Posse Comitatus Act, the longstanding federal statute that restricts the government’s ability to use the U.S. military as a police force.

(See rest of article at https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/what-posse-comitatus)

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The 4th Amendment protects the people from the government improperly taking property, papers, or people, without a valid warrant based on probable cause (good reason).

Protection against Unreasonable Search and Seizure: The Fourth Amendment protects people against unreasonable searches and seizures by government officials. A search can mean everything from a frisking by a police officer to a blood test to a search of an individual’s home or car. A seizure occurs when the government takes control of an individual or something in his or her possession. Items that are seized often are used as evidence when the individual is charged with a crime.

The Fourth Amendment imposes certain limitations on police investigating a crime and prevents the use of illegally obtained evidence at trial. But it does not restrict all searches. For example, courts have ruled that school officials may search school lockers and require that students who participate in extracurricular activities undergo random drug testing.

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

The 5th Amendment protects people from being held for committing a crime unless they are properly accused of a crime, that they may not be tried twice for the same crime (double jeopardy), that you need not be forced to testify against yourself, and from property being taken without just compensation.

Grand Jury Protection: The Fifth Amendment requirement that serious federal criminal charges be started by a grand jury (a group of citizens who hear evidence from a prosecutor about potential crimes) is rooted in English common law. Its basic purpose is to provide a fair method for beginning criminal proceedings against those accused of committing crimes. Grand jury charges can be issued against anyone except members of the military, who are instead subject to courts-martial in the military justice system.

To avoid giving government unchecked powers, grand jurors are selected from the general population and their work, conducted in secret, is not hampered by rigid rules about the type of evidence that can be heard. In fact, grand jurors can act on their own knowledge and are free to start criminal proceedings on any information that they think relevant.

It is these broad powers that have led some critics to charge that grand juries are little more than puppets of prosecutors. Grand juries also serve an investigative role-because grand juries can compel witnesses to testify in the absence of their lawyers.

A significant number of states do not use grand juries, instead they begin criminal proceedings using informations or indictments. The right to a grand jury is one of only a few protections in the Bill of Rights that has not been applied to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment.

Protection against Double Jeopardy: This portion of the Fifth Amendment protects individuals from being “twice put in jeopardy of life or limb”—that is, in danger of being punished more than once for the same criminal act. The U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted the double jeopardy clause to protect against a second prosecution for the same offense after acquittal or conviction and against multiple punishments for the same crime. Like other provisions in the Bill of Rights that affect criminal prosecutions, the double jeopardy clause is rooted in the idea that the government should not have unlimited power to prosecute and punish criminal suspects. Rather, the government gets only one chance to make its case.

Right against Self-Incrimination: This provision of the Fifth Amendment is probably the best-known of all constitutional rights, as it appears frequently on television and in movies—whether in dramatic courtroom scenes (“I take the Fifth!”) or before the police question someone in their custody (“You have the right to remain silent. Anything you do say can be used against you in a court of law.”). The right protects a person from being forced to reveal to the police, prosecutor, judge, or jury any information that might subject him or her to criminal prosecution. Even if a person is guilty of a crime, the Fifth Amendment demands that the prosecutors come up with other evidence to prove their case. If police violate the Fifth Amendment by forcing a suspect to confess, a court may suppress the confession, that is, prohibit it from being used as evidence at trial.

The right to remain silent also means that a defendant has the right not to take the witness stand at all during his or her trial, and that the prosecutor cannot point to the defendant’s silence as evidence of guilt. There are, however, limitations on the right against self-incrimination. For example, it applies only to testimonial acts, such as speaking, nodding, or writing. Other personal information that might be incriminating, like blood or hair samples, DNA or fingerprints, may be used as evidence. Similarly, incriminating statements that an individual makes voluntarily—such as when a suspect confesses to a friend or writes in a personal diary—are not protected.

Right to Due Process: The right to due process of law has been recognized since 1215, when the Magna Carta (the British charter) was adopted. Historically, the right protected people accused of crimes from being imprisoned without fair procedures (like indictments and trials, where they would have an opportunity to confront their accusers). The right of due process has grown in two directions: It affords individuals a right to a fair process (known as procedural due process) and a right to enjoy certain fundamental liberties without governmental interference (known as substantive due process). The Fifth Amendment’s due process clause applies to the federal government’s conduct. In 1868 the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment expanded the right of due process to include limits on the actions of state governments.

Today, court decisions interpreting the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process right generally apply to the Fifth Amendment and vice versa.

Takings Clause: The takings clause of the Fifth Amendment strikes a balance between the rights of private property owners and the right of the government to take that property for a purpose that benefits the public at large. When the government takes private property, it is required to pay just compensation to the property owner for his or her loss. The takings power of the government, sometimes referred to as the power of eminent domain, may be used for a wide range of valid public uses (for a highway or a park, for example). For the most part, when defining just compensation, courts try to reach some approximation of market value.

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

The 6th Amendment guarantees a speedy trial, a jury that doesn’t already think you are guilty, accused people can confront witnesses against them, and that the accused must be allowed to have a lawyer.

These are customs and privileges at law derived from long usage in Britain and America. Note: Britain and America are represented by Ephraim and Manasseh.

Right to a Jury Trial: In a criminal case, the government prosecutes or charges a defendant with a violation of the criminal law and begins proceedings (bail hearings, arraignments and trials) to prove that charge beyond a reasonable doubt.

The Sixth Amendment provides many protections and rights to a person accused of a crime. One right is to have his or her case heard by an impartial jury—independent people from the surrounding community who are willing to decide the case based only on the evidence. In some cases where there has been a significant amount of news coverage, the Supreme Court has ruled that jury members may be picked from another location in order to ensure that the jurors are impartial.

When choosing a jury, both prosecutors and defense attorneys may object to certain people being included. Some of these objections, called challenges, are for cause (the potential juror has said or done something that shows he or she may not act fairly). Others are peremptory (no real reason need be given, but one side does not want to have that person serve). Lawyers cannot use peremptory challenges to keep people off a jury because of race or gender.

Right to a Speedy Trial: This right is considered one of the most important in the Constitution. Without it, criminal defendants could be held indefinitely under a cloud of unproven criminal accusations. The right to a speedy trial also is crucial to assuring that a criminal defendant receives a fair trial. If too much time elapses between the alleged crime and the trial, witnesses may die or leave the area, their memories may fade, and physical evidence may be lost.

The Public Trial Guarantee: Like the right to a speedy trial, the right to a public trial serves the interests of both criminal defendants and the public. Defendants are protected from secret proceedings that might encourage abuse of the justice system, and the public is kept informed about how the criminal justice system works. Like most constitutional protections, however, the right to a public trial is not absolute. A criminal defendant may voluntarily give up (waive) his or her right to a public proceeding or the judge may limit public access in certain circumstances. For example, a judge might order a closed hearing to prevent intimidation of a witness or to keep order in the courtroom.

Right to Be Informed of Criminal Charges: The Sixth Amendment right to “be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation” is another protection meant to ensure that the accused receives a fair trail. A speedy, public trial that is heard by an impartial jury is meaningless if a defendant is left in the dark about exactly the crime with which he or she is charged.

Right to Be Confronted by Adverse Witnesses: The so-called confrontation clause prevents prosecutors from relying on witnesses’ out-of-court statements to make their case. Rather, it requires that prosecutors put their witnesses on the stand, under oath. As the U.S. Supreme Court explained in its 1970 opinion, California v. Green, the defendant’s ability to confront a hostile witness in person puts pressure on the witness to tell the truth, allows the defendant’s counsel to cross-examine the witness (which may reveal him or her to be unreliable), and gives the jury an up-close view of the witness, so that they can decide for themselves if the witness is believable.

There are exceptions to the confrontation clause, of course. If a knowledgeable witness is unavailable at the time of trial, for example, a previous statement will be allowed into evidence, so long as the witness made it under conditions that were similar to those at trial (for example, if the statement was made under oath). Defendants also may be prevented from confronting witnesses against them when the well-being of the witness is at issue. For example, child witnesses may be allowed to testify in the judge’s chambers rather than in open court.

Right to Assistance of Counsel: The Sixth Amendment guarantees a criminal defendant the right to have an attorney defend him or her at trial. That right is not dependent on the defendant’s ability to pay an attorney; if a defendant cannot afford a lawyer, the government is required to provide one. The right to counsel is more than just the right to have an attorney physically present at criminal proceedings. The assistance provided by the attorney must be effective. This does not mean that the defendant has a right to an attorney who will win his or her case. A defendant can receive effective assistance of counsel and still be convicted and sent to jail.

However, if an attorney’s performance is not up to reasonable standards for the profession or if the attorney’s ability to put on a full defense is hindered by the prosecutor’s misconduct, then the defendant may be able to challenge his or her conviction. This provision does not guarantee the right to an attorney in most civil cases.

Amendment VII

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

The 7th Amendment guarantees a jury trial in federal civil court cases. This type of case is normally no longer heard in federal court.

What is COMMON LAW? Black's Law Dictionary

As distinguished from the Roman law, the modern civil law, the canon law, and other systems, the common law is that body of law and juristic theory which was originated, developed, and formulated and is administered in England, and has obtained among most of the states and peoples of Anglo-Saxon stock. See more at http://thelawdictionary.org/common-law/

In 1892, the famous German Church Historian Rev. Professor Dr.J.H. Kurtz called King Alfred the greatest and noblest of all the monarchs England has ever had. King Alfred ruled from 871 to 901 A.D.

Alfred is perhaps best of all remembered for his famous Law Code. The roots of King Alfred's Book of Laws or Dooms (alias his "Deemings") came forth from the (as then already long-established) laws of Kent, Mercia and Wessex. All these attempted to blend the Mosaic Code with the Christian principles of Celto-Brythonic Law and old Germanic customs.

Alfred's father was King Ethelwulf, who ruled over the south west of England. He traced his own genealogy all the way back to Noah. Professor Warren W. Lehman records that King Alfred himself boldly traced his own ancestry — via the Scythians, to Japheth — and thus right back through the latter's father Noah to Adam.

The Seventh Amendment extends the right to a jury trial to federal civil cases such as car accidents, disputes between corporations for breach of contract, or most discrimination or employment disputes. In civil cases, the person bringing the lawsuit (the plaintiff) seeks money damages or a court order preventing the person being sued (the defendant) from engaging in certain conduct. To win, the plaintiff must prove his or her case by “a preponderance of the evidence,” that is by over fifty percent of the proof.

Although the Seventh Amendment itself says that it is limited to “suits at common law,” meaning cases that triggered the right to a jury under English law, the amendment has been found to apply in lawsuits that are similar to the old common law cases. For example, the right to a jury trial applies to cases brought under federal statutes that prohibit race or gender discrimination in housing or employment. But importantly, the Seventh Amendment guarantees the right to a jury trial only in federal court, not in state court.

Another good site ​​ http://angloisrael.com/chosenrace/betrayed.html (Posterity-Betrayed- Barbara Martin)

Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

The 8th Amendment guarantees that punishments will be fair, and not cruel, and that extraordinarily large fines will not be set.

No Excessive Bail: The first portion of the Eighth Amendment concerns bail—the money paid by a defendant in a criminal case in exchange for his or her release from jail before trial. Bail is returned to the defendant when he or she appears at trial but is forfeited to the government if he or she does not appear. In this way, bail provides an incentive for a defendant to remain in the area and participate in the trial.

Bail also promotes the ideal of being innocent until proven guilty, in that a defendant is not punished with jail time before he or she actually has been convicted. Bail also assists a defendant in preparing his or her case for trial, for it is far more difficult to consult with counsel when one is in police custody. The Eighth Amendment ensures that bail cannot be “excessive,” at an amount so high that it would be impossible for all but the richest defendants to pay it.

The Eighth Amendment however, does not guarantee an absolute right to be released on bail before trial. The U.S. Supreme Court has identified circumstances when a court may refuse bail entirely, such as when a defendant shows a significant risk of running away or poses a considerable danger to the community.

Prohibition against Cruel and Unusual Punishment: The better-known component of the Eighth Amendment is the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. Although this phrase originally was intended to outlaw certain gruesome methods of punishment—such as torture, burning at the stake, or crucifixion—it has been broadened over the years to protect against punishments that are grossly disproportionate to (meaning much too harsh for) the particular crime.

Except for a brief period in the 1970s, the death penalty has not been considered by the U.S. Supreme Court to be cruel and unusual punishment. As a result, Eighth Amendment challenges to the death penalty have focused on the methods used to carry out executions, whether certain offenders (for example, juveniles or the mentally retarded) should be subject to the sentence and whether death sentences are decided in a fair manner and by an impartial jury.

It is not just criminal sentences themselves that are subject to the cruel and unusual test; the Eighth Amendment’s cruel and unusual provision has been used to challenge prison conditions such as extremely unsanitary cells, overcrowding, insufficient medical care and deliberate failure by officials to protect inmates from one another.

Anglo-Americans and our race does not agree with torture.

Torture is banned because it is cruel and inhumane. But as Shane O’Mara writes in this account of the human brain under stress, another reason torture should never be condoned is because it does not work the way torturers assume it does.

In countless films and TV shows such as Homeland and 24, torture is portrayed (by the Jew) as a harsh necessity. If cruelty can extract secrets that will save lives, so be it. CIA officers and others conducted torture using precisely this justification. But does torture accomplish what its defenders say it does? For ethical reasons, there are no scientific studies of torture. But neuroscientists know a lot about how the brain reacts to fear, extreme temperatures, starvation, thirst, sleep deprivation, and immersion in freezing water, all tools of the torturer’s trade. These stressors create problems for memory, mood, and thinking, and sufferers predictably produce information that is deeply unreliable—and, for intelligence purposes, even counterproductive. As O’Mara guides us through the neuroscience of suffering, he reveals the brain to be much more complex than the brute calculations of torturers have allowed, and he points the way to a humane approach to interrogation, founded in the science of brain and behavior.

Torture may be effective in forcing confessions, as in Stalin’s Russia. But if we want information that we can depend on to save lives, O’Mara writes, our model should be Napoleon: “It has always been recognized that this way of interrogating men, by putting them to torture, produces nothing worthwhile.”

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Peoples rights cannot be encroached upon.

The 9th Amendment is simply a statement that other rights aside from those listed may exist, and just because they are not listed doesn't mean they can be violated.

The Ninth Amendment is a constitutional safety net intended to make clear that individuals have other fundamental rights, in addition to those listed in the First through Eighth Amendments. Some of the framers had raised concerns that because it was impossible to list every fundamental right, it would be dangerous to list just some of them (for example, the right to free speech, the right to bear arms, and so forth), for fear of suggesting that the list was complete.

This group of framers opposed a bill of rights entirely and favored a more general declaration of fundamental rights. But others, including many state representatives, had refused to ratify the Constitution without a more specific list of protections, so the First Congress added the Ninth Amendment as a compromise.

Because the rights protected by the Ninth Amendment are not specified, they are referred to as “unenumerated.” The Supreme Court has found that unenumerated rights include such important rights as the right to travel, the right to vote, the right to keep personal matters private and to make important decisions about one’s health care or body.

See also: James Madison's speech proposing the Bill of Rights June 8,1789.

Amendment X

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.

The 10th Amendment states that any power not granted to the federal government belongs to the states or to the people.

The Tenth Amendment was included in the Bill of Rights to further define the balance of power between the federal government and the states. The amendment says that the federal government has only those powers specifically granted by the Constitution. These powers include the power to declare war, to collect taxes, to regulate interstate business activities and others that are listed in the articles.

Any power not listed, says the Tenth Amendment, is left to the states or the people. Although the Tenth Amendment does not specify what these “powers” may be, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that laws affecting family relations (such as marriage, divorce, and adoption), commerce that occurs within a state’s own borders, and local law enforcement activities, are among those specifically reserved to the states or the people.

This last amendment in the Bill of Rights was probably the one most eagerly desired by the various State conventions and State legislatures that had demanded the addition of a bill of rights to the Constitution. Throughout the country, the basic uneasiness with the new Constitution was the dread that the Federal government would gradually enlarge its powers and suppress the States’ governments. The Tenth Amendment was designed to lay such fears to rest.

Rights Versus Duties

Some Americans seem to fancy that the whole Constitution is a catalog of people’s rights. But actually the major part of the Constitution—the Seven Articles—establishes a framework of national government and only incidentally deals with individuals’ rights.

The Constitution is simply an inumeration and limitation over the powers of the Federal Government.

In any society, duties are often even more important than rights. For example, the duty of obeying good laws is more essential than the right to be exempted from the ordinary operation of the laws. As has been said, every right is married to some duty. Freedom involves individual responsibility.

With that statement in mind, let us look at some of the provisions of the Bill of Rights to see how those rights are joined to certain duties.

If one has a right to freedom of speech, one has a duty to speak decently and honestly, not inciting people to riot or to commit crimes. ​​ (Like the Liberals, George Soros, the Jews)

If one has a right to freedom of the press (or, in our time, freedom of the “media”), one has the duty to publish the truth, temperately—not abusing this freedom for personal advantage or vengeance. ​​ (Main Stream Media, all so-called media)

If one has a right to join other people in a public assembly, one has the duty to tolerate other people’s similar gatherings and not to take the opportunity of converting a crowd into a mob.  ​​​​ (George Soros, liberal left)

If one enjoys an immunity from arbitrary search and seizure, one has the duty of not abusing these rights by unlawfully concealing things forbidden by law.

If one has a right not to be a witness against oneself in a criminal case, one has the duty not to pretend that he would be incriminated if he should testify: that is, to be an honest and candid witness, not taking advantage of the self-incrimination exemption unless otherwise one would really be in danger of successful prosecution. ​​ (Like the commies in the 50's taking the 5th, and were still found guilty)

If one has a right to trial by jury, one ought to be willing to serve on juries when so summoned by a court. ​​ (Jury duty, should be taken seriously)

If one is entitled to rights, one has the duty to support the public authority that protects those rights. ​​ (Duty of citizenship, brotherly love)

For, unless a strong and just government exists, it is vain to talk about one’s rights. Without liberty, order, and justice, sustained by good government, there is no place to which anyone can turn for enforcement of his claims to rights. This is because a “right,” in law, is a claim upon somebody for something. If a man has a right to be paid for a day’s work, for example, he asserts a claim upon his employer; but, if that employer refuses to pay him, the man must turn to a court of law for enforcement of his right. If no court of law exists, the “right” to payment becomes little better than an empty word. The unpaid man might try to take his pay by force, true; but when force rules instead of law, a society falls into anarchy and the world is dominated by the violent and the criminal.

Knowing these hard truths about duties, rights, and social order, the Framers endeavored to give us a Constitution that is more than mere words and slogans. Did they succeed? At the end of two centuries, the Constitution of the United States still functions adequately. Had Americans followed the French example of placing all their trust in a naked declaration of rights, without any supporting constitutional edifice to limit power and the claims of absolute liberty, it may be doubted whether liberty, order, or justice would have prevailed in the succeeding years. There cannot be better proof of the wisdom of the Framers than the endurance of the Constitution.

AMENDMENT XI - Passed by Congress March 4, 1794. Ratified February 7, 1795.

Note: Article III, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by amendment 11.

The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.

The Eleventh Amendment was passed to overturn the Supreme Court ruling in the 1793 case of Chisholm v. Georgia. Alexander Chisholm of South Carolina filed suit against the State of Georgia for breach of contract, seeking payment for goods supplied to Georgia during the War of Independence.

Georgia refused to play ball, saying that Chisholm couldn’t sue a state without its consent because it possessed sovereign immunity from suit. The court didn’t like this argument — not surprisingly, because it cut the court’s power. The court found in favor of Chisholm and ruled that Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution took away the states’ sovereign immunity because in the list of cases that could be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court that section included “Controversies . . . between a State and Citizens of another State.”

After the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1793 that two South Carolina men could sue and collect debts from the State of Georgia, states-rights advocates in Congress and the states pushed for what became the Eleventh Amendment in 1795. The amendment specifically prohibits federal courts from hearing cases in which a state is sued by an individual from another state or another country. Protecting states from certain types of legal liability is a concept known as “sovereign immunity.”

The amendment did not bar all lawsuits against states in federal courts. For example, as initially interpreted, the Eleventh Amendment did not bar suits against states when a matter of federal law was at issue nor did it prevent suits brought against a state by its own citizens. But more recently, a divided Supreme Court has held that states are immune from all lawsuits in federal courts unless they specifically agree to be sued.

AMENDMENT XII - Passed by Congress December 9, 1803. Ratified June 15, 1804.

Note: A portion of Article II, section 1 of the Constitution was superseded by the 12th amendment.

The Electors shall meet in their respective states and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate;

The candidates may not be from the same state.

Electors will vote by ballot for President and VP in their own states.

The electors will vote first for the President and then for the VP in separate ballots.

The voting procedure.

​​ -- the President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted;

The process of counting the votes.

​​ -- The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. [And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President. --]*

To be elected President there must be a majority of votes for the candidate.

If there is no majority, the House of Rep will vote for the President by ballot – one vote per state.

If the House of Rep does not choose a president before the next March 4, then the VP will act as president.

The choice of VP is made by majority decision.

If there is no majority decision for VP then the Senate will make a choice by majority votes.

​​ The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.

This paragraph relates to the rules for choosing and voting for the VP and the role of the electors and Senators.

*Superseded by section 3 of the 20th amendment.

AMENDMENT XIII - Passed by Congress January 31, 1865. Ratified December 6, 1865.

Note: A portion of Article IV, section 2, of the Constitution was superseded by the 13th amendment.

Section 1.
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2.
Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

THE ORIGINAL 13TH AMENDMENT This Article of Amendment, ratified in 1819 and which just "disappeared" in 1876, added an enforceable strict penalty, i.e., inability to hold office and loss of citizenship, for violations of the already existing constitutional prohibition in Article 1, Section 9, Clause 8 on titles of nobility and other conflicts of citizenship interest, such as accepting emoluments of any kind for services or favors rendered or to be rendered, and is particularly applicable today in the 21st Century as government is increasingly FOR SALE to the highest bidder, as foreign and multinational corporations and individuals compete to line the pockets of politicians and political parties to accommodate and purchase protection or privilege, i.e. honors, for their special interests.

The Original Thirteenth Article of Amendment
To The Constitution For The United States

"If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive, or retain any title of nobility or honour, or shall without the consent of Congress, accept and retain any present, pension, office, or emolument of any kind whatever, from any emperor, king, prince, or foreign power, such person shall cease to be a citizen of the United States, and shall be incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under them, or either of them."

This amendment was meant to keep citizens of the United States from accepting titles of nobility from foreign powers.

This amendment was proposed, properly ratified, and was a matter of record in the several States archives until 1876, by which time it was quietly, and fraudulently "disappeared", never repealed, during the period of Reconstruction after the Civil War and the presently acknowledged Thirteenth Amendment was substituted.

The original records of the real Thirteenth Amendment were thought to be destroyed at the time of the burning of the capitol during the War of 1812, but have since been found in the archives of the British Museum library in London and in the archives of several of the States and territories.

What prompted the need for the Thirteenth Amendment?

In that day, just as there are today, there were unprincipled nations, corporations and men, both within and without our Nation, seeking every means of power and control, appealing to the egos, lusts and greeds of men. The Constitution had no means of enforcing a penalty on their attempts to suborn our citizens and to subvert the Constitution and our fledgling Republic. Thus the need for the Thirteenth Article of Amendment to the Constitution as the monarchies of Europe tried to extend their hegemony over the United States and the Western Hemisphere.

This Article of Amendment is intimately connected to questions of war and national defense. It is designed to combat internal subversion and discord sowed by people who are adhering to foreign powers without stepping across the bold Consitutional line of treason.

"Permit me to issue and control the money of a nation and I care not who makes the laws..." Mayer Amschel Rothschild (1744-1812)

"Governments do not govern, but merely control the machinery of government, being themselves controlled by the hidden hand." -- Benjamin Disraeli Chancellor of the Exchequer; Prime Minister of Britain (I am trying to source this quote)

"When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time, a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it." - Frederic Bastiat - (1801-1850) in Economic Sophisms

"It is easy to understand why the law is used by the legislator to destroy in varying degrees among the rest of the people, their personal independence by slavery, their liberty by oppression, and their property by plunder. This is done for the benefit of the person who makes the law, and in proportion to the power that he holds." - Frederic Bastiat - (1801-1850) in The Law

"This is a government of the people, by the people and for the people no longer. It is a government of corporations, by corporations, and for corporations." - U.S. President Rutherford B. Hayes

"The balance of power has shifted in recent years from territorially bound governments to companies that can roam the world." - Global Dreams: Imperial Corporations and the New World Order

When the Thirteenth Titles of Nobility and Honour Article of Amendment was made to "disappear", it did not vanish all at once but it was, rather, replaced by stages and by degrees. This gradualism was simply ignored by a legal establishment and judiciary loyal to the international banking establishment, and the privileged "nobility" of the rich, both of the United States and of Europe, and the common man knew nothing of it. The fact cannot be ignored that it is with the willingly purchased aid of both the judiciary and the legal establishment that the rich and powerful bend the acts of government to their selfish purposes. Jefferson warned of this.

AMENDMENT XIV - Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868.

Note: Article I, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by section 2 of the 14th amendment.

Who created the 14th Amendment, and for what purpose?

The U.S. Congress, via the 14th Amendment, created a "citizen/subject" status, which gave equal/civil rights (privilege) to the "freed (enfranchised) slaves" and others who could not qualify to be Sovereign/Citizens. These people could not qualify to be Sovereign/Citizens of the Republic because they were/are not members of the "Posterity" of the "One People" spoken of in the first paragraph of the Declaration of Independence. Therefore, Congress created a Democracy for them! We have a government within a government and a constitution within a constitution, beginning with the 13th amendment.

How can 14th Amendment citizen/subjects (which is a statutory creation of congress) exercise sovereign powers through elected representatives, or in person, when Congress created their citizenship? Remember, Maxim of Law, the created is never greater than the creator.

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 the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

*Changed by section 1 of the 26th amendment.

See also:

http://www.sweetliberty.org/fourteenth.amend.htm#.WM06SYWcFPZ

http://www.constitution.org/14ll/no14th.htm

http://www.barefootsworld.net/14uncon.html

AMENDMENT XV - Passed by Congress February 26, 1869. Ratified February 3, 1870.

Section 1.
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude--

Section 2.
The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

AMENDMENT XVI - Passed by Congress July 2, 1909. Ratified February 3, 1913.

Note: Article I, section 9, of the Constitution was modified by amendment 16.

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

'The law that never was' Bill Benson
Geoff Metcalf's interview answers question, 'Is 16th Amendment legal?' (http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/qa/backups/17398.html)

In order for the federal government to collect anything from you, they must have a law. The 16th Amendment is what they collect the tax on. And I have proven beyond a doubt with 17,000 certified, notarized documents that not one state out of the 48 has ratified the law. They have all rejected it.

The meaning of the word "income" was clearly understood at the time. For instance, the authoritative Black's Dictionary of Law, in its 1891 edition (reiterated verbatim in 1910), defined "income tax" this way: "A tax on the yearly profits arising from property, professions, trades, and offices." (Emphasis mine throughout.)

West Publishing Co produced a widely used Judicial and Statutory Definition of Words and Phrases in 1904. It defined "income tax" as a "tax which relates to the product or income from property or from business pursuits.. ... [it] includes a tax on the gross receipts of a corporation or business."

You will notice absolutely no mention, anywhere, of the wages or salaries of the average citizen in the definition of "income." The 16th Amendment was proposed and passed as a way of collecting indirect taxes on unearned incomes and annual profits.

As Sen. Heflin said during the congressional debate, "An income tax seeks to reach the unearned wealth of the country and to make it pay its share."

Roger Foster wrote "A Treatise on the Federal Income Tax Under the Act of 1913" in 1914. In it he writes, "[I]t is evidently the intention, as a general rule, to tax only the profit of the taxpayer, not his whole revenue." So wages and salaries were exempt from taxation under the 16th Amendment; investment and dividend income and profits from business were not.

According to Investopedia, "unearned income" is "Any income that comes from investments and other sources unrelated to employment services."

Stapler v U.S., 21 F Supp 737 AT 739 (1937): "Income within the meaning of the Sixteenth Amendment and the Revenue Act, means 'gain'... and in such connection 'Gain' means profit...proceeding from property, severed from capital, however invested or employed, and coming in, received, or drawn by the taxpayer, for his separate use, benefit and disposal... Income is not a wage or compensation for any type of labor."

Oliver v. Halstead 86 S.E. Rep 2nd 859 (1955): "There is a clear distinction between `profit' and `wages', or a compensation for labor. Compensation for labor (wages) cannot be regarded as profit within the meaning of the law. The word `profit', as ordinarily used, means the gain made upon any business or investment -- a different thing altogether from the mere compensation for labor."

Helvering v Edison Bros. Stores, 133 F2d 575 (1943): "The Treasury cannot by interpretive regulations, make income of that which is not income within the meaning of the revenue acts of Congress, nor can Congress, without apportionment, tax as income that which is not income within the meaning of the 16th Amendment."

Flora v U.S., 362 U.S. 145, (1959) never overruled: "... the government can collect the tax from a district court suitor by exercising it's power of distraint... but we cannot believe that compelling resort to this extraordinary procedure is either wise or in accord with congressional intent. Our system of taxation is based upon VOLUNTARY ASSESSMENT AND PAYMENT , NOT UPON DISTRAINT" [Footnote 43] If the government is forced to use these remedies(distraint) on a large scale, it will affect adversely the taxpayers willingness to perform under our VOLUNTARY assessment system.

McCutchin v Commissioner of IRS, 159 F2d: "The 16th Amendment does not authorize laying of an income tax upon one person for the income derived solely from another."[wages]

See more: http://famguardian.org/subjects/taxes/Evidence/WhatIsIncome.htm

AMENDMENT XVII - Passed by Congress May 13, 1912. Ratified April 8, 1913.

Note: Article I, section 3, of the Constitution was modified by the 17th amendment.

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.

When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.

This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.

A number of Republican politicians and conservative commentators are calling for repeal of the 17th Amendment. Ratified in 1913, it gave voters the power to elect U.S. senators directly.

Before that, senators were generally selected by state legislatures. Returning that authority to the states would give them much more sway in Washington, restoring their role as a check on federal expansion, repeal supporters say.

The 17th Amendment was one of several innovations during the so-called Progressive Era (Jewish propaganda) meant to promote direct democracy, such as ballot initiatives, recall elections and party primaries.

Mark Levin calls the amendment "an object lesson in the malignancy of the Progressive mindset and its destructive impact."

Indeed, the lineage of the 17th Amendment is something its critics hold against it. Frank Niceley, a Republican state senator in Tennessee, says 1913 was "an unlucky year for Americans," because it ushered in not only direct election of U.S. senators but the Federal Reserve and the income tax (and the ADL). The Jews gained total power in the US in 1913.

AMENDMENT XVIII - Passed by Congress December 18, 1917. Ratified January 16, 1919. Repealed by amendment 21.

Section 1.
After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.

Section 2.
The Congress and the several States shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Section 3.
This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.

The Great Scheme: Alcohol-based fuels, Ford, Rockefeller, and Prohibition.

But the most fascinating aspect of the connection between alcohol and fuel use concerns a little known (or discussed) aspect of American history. To understand this relationship, one must examine some contextual information of the early Twentieth Century. Most people are not aware that Henry Ford's Model T came in a variation that allowed the driver to switch the carburetor to run the engine on farm-made ethyl acohol. This allowed the operator to stop at local farms (equipped with stills) to refuel his/her car during long trips through the backcountry. After all- the gas station wasn't exactly as ubiquitous in those days, as it is now. The Standard Oil Company and its industrialist-founder John D. Rockefeller wasn't too happy with this arrangement. After all, Rockefeller's company had a virtual monoploly on gasoline at this time in our nation's development.

It should be evident to any serious student of history that John D. Rockefeller was no political progressive. His fights with muckraker Ida Tarbell are legendary. She was ultimately responsible for the dissolution of the Standard Oil Trust in 1911. Not that this actually hurt Rockefeller- his wealth actually increased after Standard Oil broke up. Rockefeller held significant interests in the resulting companies, which included the precursors of today's Seven Sisters oil companies. The break-up of Standard Oil actually made him the wealthiest man in the world, as the share values of most of these companies doubled. Yet Rockefeller would find benefit once again within the reform movement that he considered his enemy. Since the late 1800's there had been a growing Alcohol Temperance Movement developing among reformers. Rockefeller saw an opportunity in this. It is well-documented that local efforts to curb alcohol consumption were expanded to the national level when high-profile figures like Rockefeller joined in the anti-alcohol efforts. Was he so concerned with the social problems that abuse of alcohol was said to cause?

No... John D. Rockefeller was not concerned with family dynamics in the working classes. But he was influential in changing the goals of the movement from temperance to prohibition. As we know, his contribution to the outlawing of the production and sale of alcohol was successful. Of course, Rockefeller and the oil companies reaped tremendous profits as a result. Remember that the period covered by the 18th Amendment (1919-1933) coincided with the huge rise in the sale and operation of automobiles. America was on the move, and all of these cars were now operated solely on gasoline. By the time that the 21st Amendment was passed, ending the prohibition of alcohol, the standard was already set and worked completely in the favor of the Rockefeller family.

AMENDMENT XIX - Passed by Congress June 4, 1919. Ratified August 18, 1920.

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

AMENDMENT XX - Passed by Congress March 2, 1932. Ratified January 23, 1933.

Note: Article I, section 4, of the Constitution was modified by section 2 of this amendment. In addition, a portion of the 12th amendment was superseded by section 3.

Section 1.
The terms of the President and the Vice President shall end at noon on the 20th day of January, and the terms of Senators and Representatives at noon on the 3d day of January, of the years in which such terms would have ended if this article had not been ratified; and the terms of their successors shall then begin.

Section 2.
The Congress shall assemble at least once in every year, and such meeting shall begin at noon on the 3rd day of January, unless they shall by law appoint a different day.

Section 3.
If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.

Section 4.
The Congress may by law provide for the case of the death of any of the persons from whom the House of Representatives may choose a President whenever the right of choice shall have devolved upon them, and for the case of the death of any of the persons from whom the Senate may choose a Vice President whenever the right of choice shall have devolved upon them.

Section 5.
Sections 1 and 2 shall take effect on the 15th day of October following the ratification of this article.

Section 6.
This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission.

AMENDMENT XXI - Passed by Congress February 20, 1933. Ratified December 5, 1933.

Section 1.
The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.

Section 2.
The transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or Possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited.

Section 3.
This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by conventions in the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.

AMENDMENT XXII - Passed by Congress March 21, 1947. Ratified February 27, 1951.

Section 1.
No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of President more than once. But this Article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this Article was proposed by Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this Article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.

Section 2.
This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission to the States by the Congress.

AMENDMENT XXIII - Passed by Congress June 16, 1960. Ratified March 29, 1961.

Section 1.
The District constituting the seat of Government of the United States shall appoint in such manner as Congress may direct:

A number of electors of President and Vice President equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives in Congress to which the District would be entitled if it were a State, but in no event more than the least populous State; they shall be in addition to those appointed by the States, but they shall be considered, for the purposes of the election of President and Vice President, to be electors appointed by a State; and they shall meet in the District and perform such duties as provided by the twelfth article of amendment.

Section 2.
The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

AMENDMENT XXIV - Passed by Congress August 27, 1962. Ratified January 23, 1964.

Section 1.
The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay poll tax or other tax.

Section 2.
The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

AMENDMENT XXV - Passed by Congress July 6, 1965. Ratified February 10, 1967.

Note: Article II, section 1, of the Constitution was affected by the 25th amendment.

Section 1.
In case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President.

Section 2.
Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress.

Section 3.
Whenever the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that he is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, and until he transmits to them a written declaration to the contrary, such powers and duties shall be discharged by the Vice President as Acting President.

Section 4.
Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.

Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty-eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty-one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty-one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two-thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office.

AMENDMENT XXVI - Passed by Congress March 23, 1971. Ratified July 1, 1971.

Note: Amendment 14, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by section 1 of the 26th amendment.

Section 1.
The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.

Section 2.
The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

The Jews wanted college kids to be able to vote, because the colleges are run by Jews, and the professors are Jews, and your kids are turned into liberal retards there.

AMENDMENT XXVII - Originally proposed Sept. 25, 1789. Ratified May 7, 1992.

No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of representatives shall have intervened.