–John

Equal protection of the law for all citizens means just that. That all citizens are protected. The 14th Amendment citizenship does not negate nor replace Article II, “Natural Born Citizen”.

The 13th Amendment freed the African Americans from slavery but did not afford them U.S. citizenship. The 14th Amendment was instituted to give the African Americans U.S. Citizenship. At that time in history, African Americans were moving from State to State. Some States because of their State Constitutions would not afford them citizenship. Thus, the reason for U.S. Citizenship so that individual States could not discriminate. The American Indians were offered U.S. citizenship through the 14th Amendment as well. They were not considered U.S. citizens even though born on American soil because their allegiance was to their tribes and not to America. We had treaties with them. Thus, the 14th Amendment institution naturalized U.S. citizenship as we did not have immigration at that time. This amendment has been largely misued. As you say, the SCOTUS Judges and Congress are very creative and do play on words in the U.S. Constitution. Thus, Obama has done this as well.

You say: “it’s OK, you don’t have to accept him, but most of America has accepted him, so just stay behind, we don’t need you!”

Might I remind you that 60,000,000+ of the approx. 130,000,000 voters went to Senator McCain. So most of Americans has not necessarily accepted Obama. If this country falls we all fall. Think about it.

Obama, himself, announced on TV that his father was born in Kenya. His father was never a U.S. Citizen. Because his father is Kenyan, Obama is at best a “U.S. Citizen” and cannot be a “Natural Born Citizen” per Article II of the U.S. Constitution. It doesn’t really make any difference where Obama was born, except that if he was not born in HI, he would be either a “Naturalized citizen” or an illegal alien.

The definition of “Natural Born Citizen” is quite clear. For starters, go to http://www.senate.gov/civics/constitution_item/constitution.htm for review of the U.S. Constitution. Then you can go to http://www.constitution.org for the U.S. Constitution and backup documents. There are many educational organizations and government websites where you can find a clear interpretation.

As I began considering the implications of that position I seem to have wandered into a morass of very disturbing implications. For it seems to me that the Supreme Court has been routinely inventing authority that allows the congress to usurp authority that neither body has under the Constitution. This usurpation has apparently, insofar as I can interpret the language of the Constitution and the meaning apparently assigned to it by the court, been accomplished by stretching the meaning of words and clauses until the law is made sufficiently plastic and modifiable by the court as to support any meaning the court wants to give it—in but a few places, of course, places prone to providing promiscuous results.

In short, by means of some very creative word-twisting, the Supreme Court has given congress the power to circumvent the clear meaning of the Constitution’s limitation of Congressional powers within state boundaries to matters dealing with national issues and to pass laws that effectively dictate to the several States in a manner contrary to the 10th Amendment. The usurpation hinges on adopting a flexible and shifting interpretation for the meaning of the words “state” and “union” so that, when convenient to the purpose of the tyrants’ usurpation, the words mean two different things, or the same thing, as their purpose demands. Not being a lawyer, I cannot say with legal certainty, but it seems reasonable to me as a linguist that if two words in a legal document can ordinarily both have multiple meanings and one of the two meanings makes the two words the same word, this, being nowhere else made clear, is some kind of flaw in the document.

I got to thinking about this yesterday when I just re-read the 14th Amendment for the umpteenth time, and saw something I had not considered before”

“No state shall …”

“NO STATE” it says.

A very reasonable case could be made, I should think, that “state” is distinguished in the first section from “the Unites States” by the plain wording of the first sentence: “born or naturalized in the United States, … are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.”

If “the United States” is not differentiated from “the state in which they reside” then the word “and” is unnecessary, and the expression “the state in which they reside” is redundant.

So far as I understand it, there is a legal principle that makes it incorrect to construe any law in a way that makes a word or a clause redundant or unnecessary, such that, whenever there is an ambiguity allowing such interpretations, the law must be interpreted to disallow the redundancy by applying a different meaning to the potentially redundant word or clause than was applied previously to its potential synonym so as to interpret the law to have a meaning that allows no unnecessary word or phrase insofar as possible. Now consider what this implies for the legal meaning of the words in the 14th Amendment. I think you, too, will find this discovery quite shocking. “Alarming” might in fact be a better word.

Once established, this distinction between “the United States” (the federal government) and a “state in which [someone] resides” (a state government) must then be maintained throughout the remainder of the 14th Amendment. With such an understanding in force, the meaning of the 14th Amendment is quite clear and consistent with its purpose at the time it was adopted.

With that in mind, then, the clause: “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States” does not, cannot make the “natural born citizen” clause of the Constitution void, because Article II is not a law made or enforced by a “state” but by “the United States.” Notice how this differs from the 1st Amendment, which begins, “Congress shall pass no law …”

Now consider the “equal protection” clause, which is also (erroneously, in my view) cited by some as a reason for voiding the “natural born citizen” clause. Again, it is binding upon a “state” not upon “the United States,” but this is neither here nor there given another clearly implied meaning of the 14th Amendment: “No state shall make or enforce … ; nor shall any state deprive … ; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

The constitution of the United States distinguishes between “citizen of the United States” and “natural born citizen,” and it distinguishes between citizens and non-citizens (by establishing conditions upon which citizenship is conferred), but the equal protection of the laws, which applies to all “persons,” does not, cannot destroy the meaningful distinction between “alien” and “citizen” according to the authority of the Constitution of the United States of America, since the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment does not apply to “the United States,” but to each several “state.”

For the same reason the 14th Amendment does not, cannot destroy the meaningful distinction between “citizen” and “natural born citizen.” Thus “equal protection of the laws” does not grant a person who merely happens to be in the country the right to vote, for example. In a similar way, the 14th Amendment cannot grant to a “citizen” who is not a “natural born citizen” the right to be president.

To summarize the points made above, the clear distinction made in the first section of the 14th Amendment between “the United States” on the one hand and “the state in which they reside” on the other precludes any claim that the 14th Amendment supercedes the “natural born citizen” clause in the Constitution, because the U.S. Constitution is not the law of “the state in which [a presidential candidate/president] resides” but of “the United States.” The “natural born citizen” requirement does not apply to a person within the jurisdiction of a “state,” but applies only to persons who are under the jurisdiction, in this case, only of Article II of the Constitution of the United States Constitution. Clearly, those who wrote the 14th Amendment were aware that they were thus preserving the “natural born citizen” requirement for the office of president in the language of this amendment.

I am not a lawyer, but a linguist, and this is only an opinion, but the reasonableness of this opinion in light of the expressed intentions of the founders is quite clear to me.

Now comes the twist, the shocking news. All of the above is predicated on the absolutely reasonable understanding that the authors of the 14th Amendment meant to preserve a distinction between citizens and resident aliens, and between citizens and natural born citizens. After all, its purpose was to end slavery, and there was no need nor purpose to be advanced in blurring these distinctions. As worded, and with the distinction illuminated above, the 14th Amendment absolutely precludes denying citizenship to anyone born in the United States (thus rendering moot the Dred Scott decision), while guaranteeing every citizen of the United States the full and equal application of the laws of each of the several states. It is important to emphasize this last point, because it, too, makes a distinction. It was never the intent of the 14th Amendment to make the “equal protection” clause applicable to the federal government, since the only place in which the federal government had ever made a distinction between one class of persons and another was in the area of citizenship—specifically, “natural born citizens,” “citizens of the United States,” “other persons,” and “Indians not taxed.” These distinctions were not intended to be erased by the 14th Amendment. And it was unnecessary to stretch the meaning of the 14th Amendment to enforce equal protection of the laws to every person within the country under federal law, since there were no federal laws pertaining to the issue of slavery per se, nor did the federal government have any such powers over the citizens of the several states such as it apparently claims now. And there is the rub.

In the 20th century, the Supreme Court began to find new explicit “rights” supposedly in the Constitution, and to invent new powers for the federal government that would never have been allowed by the founders or the authors of the several Amendments. Mangling language in the most barbaric way, the court, in 1973, found a “right” to an abortion in the meaning of the word “person” in the first clause of the 14th Amendment, arguing that if anyone was a person born or naturalized in the United States, it followed that someone not yet born (or naturalized?) was not a person, and could thus be murdered—err, killed—without legal repercussion. This began (or continued) a wholesale redefinition of the United States Constitution to embrace all kinds of never before thought of “rights” in penumbras of fictional origin, including the wholesale dismantling of the distinction between “the United States” and the several “states” in which the people actually lived.

Having thus burned its conscience to death with the Roe v Wade ruling, the court went on to find all kinds of fictional rights in the “equal protection” clause. Fictional, I say, because the “equal protection” clause does not reasonably apply at the federal level, as shown above, and the federal government therefore has no authority to authorize Congress to pass legislation to enforce these fictional rights that the Supreme Court invented by perverting the meaning of the words in this amendment. Now, as we all know, the Supreme Court has been blithely issuing proclamation after proclamation based on the illogical interpretation of the equal protection clause to be a federal law empowering Congress to enact all sorts of remedial legislation to insure “equal” protection from or toward countless totalitarian absurdities such as Affirmative Action, school busing, queer marriage, and the whole grand slam of nonsensical Draconian bully beatings with which we are all now familiar. Well, now you also know where it all came from. The court stole this authority by blinding itself to the clear distinction between state and federal governments in the 14th Amendment (after first shooting a hole through the part of its collective brain that formerly held the words “born” and “person”) and has handed to Congress ever since a carte blanche power to run amok with our liberties that the Constitution never granted to it.

Now you can understand, too, why the federal government does nothing, absolutely nothing to stem the tide of the illegal (so we thought) invasion of our country (so we thought), since it is now all too clear just why. From this understanding we can see that it likewise erased the distinction between natural born citizen and citizen, and (the bigger shocker) between citizen and non-citizen. You see, if equal protection of the laws applies to all persons however they got “within the United States,” under such an interpretation of the 14th Amendment as has been used to justify all the Congressional action on Affirmative Action, then all the blessings of liberty granted by American citizenship as a distinction are completely erased as well. Welcome to the new world order, “comrades”.

You didn’t know that this “bloodless” coup of the phony foreign one was so well planned, did you? Or that, having been this well planned, you have zero chance of stopping this communist takeover, since everyone in government is in on it (and laughing at you). Perhaps everyone in your neighborhood is in on it but you. You didn’t know that the lawyers that planned all this have been teaching law at Harvard for the last forty years, did you? Or that they’ve been importing their students from the gutters of the armpits of the world and paying their tuition without regard to merit so long as they were member of the ICP? Or that, once they bring terrorists into the country as refugees or displaced enemy combatants, those dirtbags will have all the rights and privileges you do, including a right to live in your home? I mean, (excuse me, how careless!), what was formerly your home. Well, now you do. Those of you who find this appalling can be sure that your dissident’s solitary confinement cell has already been prepared and furnished and is ready for your immediate occupancy, next on the agenda. You think this is extreme? Wait. See.

This is not a formal site to keep records, it is an information site, turns out they were doing some maintainance and parts of site were not accessible, these came back on line next day. No docket was removed from court as this info site is not the court records site (actual records are not on line). Good luck on Taitz’s complaint!

the vast majority of Americans believe Obama is qualified. Today Obama’s Lincoln Day address was cheered by Dems & Repubs. His TV appearances are currently the largest draw on TV. I am a US Marine and I voted for Obama, another US Marine Gen Jim Jones (was commandant of Marines) is working for Obama. You may not agree with his politics, but calling him a traitor says more about you than it does about Obama, no wonder you guys can’t win a case! The guy shouting traitor the loudest is usually the traitor!

Why isn’t this being moved forward or the MSM covering this issue?

We have evidence SCOTUS has refused to fire Clerk Bickell and other clerks for blatant obstruction of justice on cases specifically geared to questioning the usurper’s eligibility ( in this case the lack thereof).

Let’s review:

1. Blatant mishandling of the Donofrio case (denied at the clerk level – Bickell).
2. Blatant mishandling of the Wrotnowski case (denied at the clerk level – Bickell, then shipped off to the Anthrax lab).
3. Blatant mishandling of the Lightfoot case (lost paperwork, and yes, Bickell was working on this one also – just call the clerk’s office to confirm).

This 3 ring circus called the Supreme Court has shown its true colors. It cares not of the process or the Constitution. And it’s not the first time this has happened. It also occurred in 2004 after the election. You can do some research on this as well.

Now if we were talking about a fraud or forgery case, that’s a different story.

However, the Supreme Court and Congress would be considered guilty of Seditious Conspiracy should Soetoro be deemed ineligible. And Soetoro would be considered to be a fraud should he be deemed ineligible. Both are criminal offenses.

They can not plead ignorance to it as there have been more than 6 ineligibility cases brought to the attention of the Supreme Court before the inauguration and countless other Congressional and state officials responding to questions and lawsuite based on his ineligibility before the inauguration.