ILLEGALITY
OF FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT!
PART 3
By
Albert Burns
July 24, 2005
NewsWithViews.com
In
the early 1950s, the U.S. Senate commissioned a study of U.S. Supreme
Court Cases, paid for by Congress and published by the Government
Printing Office. That document which we have previously
mentioned was The Constitution of the United States
of America: Analysis and Interpretation: Annotations of Cases
Decided by The Supreme Court Of The United States to June 3,
1952. It was published as Senate Document 170.
Study
of that document by Constitutional scholar, Dan Smoot, revealed that
the Supreme Court had actually converted the Bill of Rights into
a weapon to destroy the powers of state governments and for abridging
or abolishing the rights of our citizens. This was done,
primarily, through claiming that the never properly ratified
14th Amendment had “absorbed” the Bill of Rights (the
first ten amendments to the Constitution) making them applicable
to state governments!
Several
earlier decisions, the first in 1833, by the Supreme Court had
emphatically stated that the limitations on governmental power
contained in the Bill of Rights applied strictly to the
federal government and did NOT apply, in any way,
to state governments. A simple reading of those first
ten amendments makes that abundantly clear to any honest reader.
In
our previous column, we mentioned that the first time a U.S. Supreme
Court considered the implications of the 14th Amendment was in
1873. In that case, the Supreme Court, as recorded in Document
170 ruled that the real purpose of the 14th Amendment was: “...
to centralize in the hands of the Federal Government large powers
hitherto exercised by the States ... . This expansive alteration
of the Federal System was to have been achieved by converting the
rights of the citizens of each State as of the date of the adoption of
the Fourteenth Amendment into privileges and immunities of United
States citizenship ...” That court ruled that would
have been “to transfer the security and protection of all the
civil rights ... to the Federal Government ... to bring within the
power of Congress the entire domain of civil rights heretofore
belonging exclusively to the states” and to “constitute
this court a PERPETUAL CENSOR upon the legislation of the States, on
the civil rights of their own citizens, with authority to nullify such
as it did not approve ...” (Emphasis added.)
The jurists of that court could clearly see what the implications of
the 14th Amendment were.
In
1877, the Supreme Court again reaffirmed the constitutional doctrine
from the 1873 case. It was a case dealing with state
power to regulate rates charged for the transportation of grain.
In this 1877 case, the court stated: “We know that this power
may be abused; but....for protection against abuses by (state)
legislatures the people must resort to the polls, NOT TO THE COURTS.”
(Emphasis added)
By
1905, the Supreme Court had heard and decided at least twenty more
cases involving the 14th Amendment, ALWAYS reaffirming the fact that
it DID NOT extend the prohibitions of the Bill of Rights to
state governments. In 1905, the Supreme Court finally overturned
a STATE law (Lochner vs. New York) on the grounds that the law
violated the “due process” clause of the 14th
Amendment.
It
was the beginning of the end for our original Constitutional
system. In highly prophetic words, Justice John Marshall Harlan
dissented, saying: “No evils arising from ... [state]
legislation could be more far reaching than those that might come to
our system of government if the judiciary, abandoning the sphere
assigned to it by the fundamental law, should enter the domain of
legislation, and upon grounds merely of justice or reason or wisdom
annum statute that had received the sanction of the people’s
representatives.”
In
1925, the Supreme Court, in the case of Gitlow vs. New York,
fully implemented the doctrine that the 14th Amendment had “absorbed”
the Bill of Rights and extended the prohibitions of the First
Amendment to include state governments. This gave the Supreme
Court the power to supervise the legislation of state
governments. In that case, the Court stated: “For
present purposes WE MAY AND DO ASSUME that freedom of speech and of
the press — which are protected by the First Amendment from
abridgement by Congress — are among the fundamental PERSONAL rights
and “liberties” protected by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment from impairment by the States.”
(Emphasis added)
Finally,
in a burst of arrogance, in 1954, in the Brown vs. Topeka case,
the Warren Supreme Court, using the 14th Amendment “absorption”
doctrine, abandoned the principle of Stare Decisis (that the
court should be guided by previous Supreme Court decisions) and fabricated
a wholly new doctrine: that the Supreme Court could CHANGE
the Constitution at will, taking no regard for law, the clear
meaning of words or former precedent.
From
the date of that decision, American citizens have not really had a
Constitution at all. Until we, the people of this country,
force Congress to use its power to rein in the Supreme Court, our
Constitution is WHATEVER an oligarchy of NINE men and women in
Washington SAY it is!!!