Results 1 to 3 of 3

Thread: Searching for “Marriage” In the Fourteenth Amendment

  1. #1

    Searching for “Marriage” In the Fourteenth Amendment

    Searching for “Marriage” In the Fourteenth Amendment
    By Publius Huldah


    During April 2015, the US Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Obergefell v Hodges and consolidated cases. The questions presented for the Court to decide are:

    1. Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a State to license a marriage of two people of the same sex?
    2. Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to recognize a marriage of two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out of state?
    Section 1 of the 14th Amendment says

    "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 law." [emphasis mine]
    Obviously, §1 says nothing about “marriage” or “homosexuality”. So how can it be said to authorize the supreme Court to FORCE States to accept same sex marriage?

    Simple! All they have to do is redefine “liberty” in §1 to get it to mean whatever they need it to mean in order to get the result they want in the cases before them.

    And that is precisely what the supreme Court has been doing. In Roe v. Wade (1973), they looked at the word, “liberty”, in §1 and said it means “privacy”, and “privacy” means you can kill your baby. The Court said under Part VIII of their Opinion:

    "…This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment’s concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is … is broad enough to encompass a woman’s decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy..."
    In Lawrence v. Texas (2003), they looked at the word, “liberty”, in §1 and said it means “consulting adults have the right to engage in private acts of homosexual sodomy”:

    We conclude the case should be resolved by determining whether the petitioners were free as adults to engage in the private conduct in the exercise of their liberty under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment…” (1st para under II)

    "…The case does involve two adults who, with full and mutual consent from each other, engaged in sexual practices common to a homosexual lifestyle. The petitioners are entitled to respect for their private lives. The State cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime. Their right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives them the full right to engage in their conduct …" (3rd para up from end) [emphasis mine]
    Do you see? The supreme Court uses the word, “liberty”, in §1 of the 14th Amendment to justify practices they approve of and want to force everybody else to accept.

    And by claiming that these practices constitute “liberty rights” which arise under §1 of the 14th Amendment, they evade the constitutional limits on their judicial power.

    I’ll show you.

    The Judicial Power of the Federal Courts is Strictly Limited by The Constitution!
    The Constitution does not permit federal courts to hear any case the Judges want to hear. Instead, a case must fall within one of a few categories before federal courts have jurisdiction to hear it.

    Article III, §2, clause 1, lists the cases federal courts have the delegated authority to hear. They may hear only cases:

    1. Arising under the Constitution, or the Laws of the United States, or Treaties made under the Authority of the United States [“federal question” jurisdiction];

    2. Affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers & Consuls; cases of admiralty & maritime Jurisdiction; or cases in which the U.S. is a Party [“status of the parties” jurisdiction]; and

    3. Cases between two or more States; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States; and certain cases between a State and Citizens of another State or Citizens or Subjects of a foreign State [“diversity” jurisdiction].
    Alexander Hamilton writes in Federalist No. 83 (8th para):

    "…the judicial authority of the federal judicatures is declared by the Constitution to comprehend certain cases particularly specified. The expression of those cases marks the precise limits beyond which the federal courts cannot extend their jurisdiction…" [emphasis mine]
    If a case does not fit within one of these categories, federal courts may not lawfully hear it.

    In Federalist No. 80, Hamilton explains the categories of cases over which federal Courts have jurisdiction.

    Since the “right” to same sex marriage is claimed to arise under §1 of the 14th Amendment, we will focus on Hamilton’s discussion of cases “arising under this Constitution”; or, as Hamilton puts it, cases:

    …which concern the execution of the provisions expressly contained in the articles of Union…” (2nd para) [emphasis mine]
    “Expressly contained”. Hamilton then gives examples of such cases: If a State violates the constitutional provisions which prohibit States from imposing duties on imported articles, or from issuing paper money [Art. I, §10], the federal courts are in the best position to overrule infractions which are “in manifest contravention of the articles of Union. [i.e., Constitution]”

    Do you see?

    So! Where are provisions addressing marriage and homosexuality “expressly contained” in our Constitution?

    The answer any competent 8th grader should be able to give is, “Nowhere!”


    Fabrication of “constitutional rights” in order to Usurp Judicial Power.

    So now you see how Justices on the supreme Court evaded the constitutional limits on their judicial Power: They fabricated individual “constitutional rights” which they claimed were to be found in §1 of the 14th Amendment so that they could then pretend that the cases “arise under the Constitution”!

    But power over abortion, homosexuality, and marriage is nowhere in our Constitution delegated to the national government over the Country at Large.

    The supreme Court has usurped power over these objects. Their opinions are void for lack of jurisdiction and are proper objects of nullification.

    ...(lots more at source)...

    In short, the due process clause of the 14th Amendment was to protect freed slaves from being lynched, imprisoned, or having their stuff taken away except pursuant to the judgment of their peers after a fair trial! It had nothing to do with “liberating” the American People from moral laws established thousands of years ago and codified into their own State Codes.

    (Source/more)

    Related:




    P.S. Its interesting that in one case an administrative law 'judge' suggested that the price of citizenship or having a license or being a member of the society brought with it the obligation to obey the laws, but yet what the price of citizenship in the United States being adherence to the laws and morals of the several states? The 14th amendment reads at the very first sentence:

    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.
    They are citizens (subjects) of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. So they if are subjects of the state wherein they reside, what gives the subject and franchisee the right to nullify state law? Its well established that freeborn "Blacks" were participants in early government and that attempts to diminish those rights were unlawful. But where was anyone given the right to engage in practices which undermine the public health?

    The 14th amendment does not read:

    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 and if such persons don't like the laws of the state wherein they reside they can appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States to get a license to ignore them.
    In New Zealand and Canada and most everywhere else, "gays" get civil unions or 'civil partnerships' not marriages. But is the MSM attacking New Zealand, Canada and those places? The 14th amendment never granted any right for 'gay marriage'. The right to for two men or two women or 1,000 men and women to merge their estates through powers of attorneys, trusts, estate planning methods and written agreements has never abrogated.
    Last edited by allodial; 09-21-15 at 01:52 AM.
    All rights reserved. Without prejudice. No liability assumed. No value assured.

    "The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius
    "It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter." Proverbs 25:2
    Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. Thess. 5:21.

  2. #2
    States should not be in the marriage license business at all. It is none of the servants fucking business. THAT IS THE WHOLE OF THE PROBLEM. Fix that and it all goes away. Marriage is a fact of the case to be determined as all others.

  3. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by pumpkin View Post
    States should not be in the marriage license business at all. It is none of the servants fucking business. THAT IS THE WHOLE OF THE PROBLEM. Fix that and it all goes away. Marriage is a fact of the case to be determined as all others.
    Quite a few states such as the State of Mississippi are considering removing marriage licenses altogether and going back to the simple county recording system. The issue about gay marriage is really an issue of solidifying and institution of 'equality' of corporations and the civilly dead with the living. SCOTUS is out to enshrine a franchise that further entrenches the treatment of corporations as though they were living souls (writ of mortmain, etc.).

    Publius Huldah made the point that states weren't in the marriage business. Perhaps the Federal Government coaxed it?

    At the time of our Framing, “marriage” does not appear to have been encompassed within “public Act or record”. In Federalist No. 42 (next to last para), Madison comments on the clause in connection with criminal and civil justice. An Act of the First Congress (May 26, 1790) which implemented the clause addresses laws made by State legislatures. An amendment to the 1790 Act (March 27, 1804), addresses “records” which may be kept in any public office of the State. But this cannot have included marriage records because a number of the original 13 States recognized common law marriage. And even for States which required formalities (e.g., Virginia), marriages could be accomplished by publication of banns and subsequent recordation in church and parish records – which were not “public records”. Marriage licenses issued by the States were a later development. The meaning of the clause which prevailed when the Constitution was drafted and ratified remains until changed by formal Amendment to the Constitution. So the full faith and credit clause does NOT require States to recognize marriages contracted under the laws of other States.


    Name:  61RhCOnrVZL._AC_UL320_SR214,320_.jpg
Views: 59
Size:  28.5 KB

    For you have said: We have entered into a league with death, and we have made a covenant with hell. When the overflowing scourge shall pass through, it shall not come upon us: for we have placed our hope in lies, and by falsehood we are protected. Isaiah 28:15 Douay-Rheims (identical to KVJ)
    It might be worth noting that when someone joins certain societies (such as those who make a covenant with death) or the military, they might become "civilly dead". If you look at the legal issues surrounding World War I and the issue of sovereign states joining with non-colonies in war--especially in the declaration of war (the subject-ites needed their masters to declare war), it raised flags because the subjects/slaves of one could not legally join with the freeborn or sovereign nations in war activity. A similar thing might hold for residents of municipalities (members of dead corporation) in contrast to associates of a county. "Do you live in the City?"

    There is a lot of lower-level, backroom manipulations going on behind the whole gay marriage thing. Another is an attempt to provoke widespread denial of rights to "Blacks" by wrongly drawing "Blacks" into parity people who have sexual fetishes and exhibitionism problems and figure that "everyone" must be aware of and approve of what they do in the privacy of their own homes. "Its none of our business" but yet they are hell bent on making it everyone's business if they can.

    The terms "black" (as opposed to "Black") and "negro" should be read in parity with 'corporation' because it does not describe anyone freeborn who is outside of a servitude. The term "colored" describes a felon much like "checkered past". (Imagine generations of people being taught to bear false witness against themselves.) The lawyers behind the Gay Agenda are really furthering entrenchment of 'corporate personhood'. Why? Because they know that under Natural Law they are as the dead--dead under the law rather dead to the law. So consider men and women who perpetrate crimes perpetrated under the cover of corporate (probate) law do so because they would be dead under the law so they "make a covenant with death" to avoid the consequences. Point is that behind the scenes of the Gay Agenda (and other such similar things) its to do with revisions to long-standing principles of probate law.

    With Gay Marriage, the ways by which a man or a woman can be robbed of 1/2 his stuff have been at least doubled. Palimony and regular divorce was bad enough. "Gay Marriage" gives probate courts a lot more business.

    So you get this idea of 'equality' is to formulate a system where by the civilly dead are as if equal to the living which is tantamount to a conspiracy to force everyone into slavery. Equity is better then equality. Corporations could not have had their foothold on American soil without the 14th amendment. The conspiracy against rights of "Blacks" or "Moors" was just a lead-in to the 14th which would not have been needed if the conspiracy wasn't there to begin with.

    It must be understood that if someone is a member of a corporation, they are 'civilly dead' and all of the inroads made for 'equality' have been toward dragging the living down to the 'realm of the dead'. Equity is about fairness. Equality is about dragging people down.

    I set out on this ground which I suppose to be self-evident: 'That the earth belongs in usufruct to the living;' that the dead have neither powers nor rights over it... We seem not to have perceived that by the law of nature, one generation is to another as one independent nation to another." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1789. ME 7:454
    Name:  execute-corporations.jpg
Views: 57
Size:  35.8 KB
    Note the parallels:

    [1] The same "Gays" that want sympathy and exemption from the sword of the state for the crimes they committed under a state's law have hardly evidenced restraint to threatening to put the sword or violence to someone who disagrees with them;
    [2] The same corporations and corporate bosses who want exemption from the law for crimes they commit regularly have people prosecuted for shoplifting, stealing, etc.--but if they rob millions of billions of $ and of their livelihood and kill animals in the Gulf of Mexico they claim that they "have placed their hope in lies, and by falsehood they are protected". Yet Michael Vick goes to jail and loses his career over dog fighting? But its allegedly OK for corporations to dump radioactive waste in the Pacific or oil in the Gulf of Mexico and cause the deaths of thousands of animals--yet no one gets arrested? If you go to a BP and attempt to steal some gasoline or snacks, what would happen?

    Name:  birdoilspill.jpg
Views: 60
Size:  17.3 KB

    Related:
    Last edited by allodial; 09-21-15 at 03:23 PM.
    All rights reserved. Without prejudice. No liability assumed. No value assured.

    "The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius
    "It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter." Proverbs 25:2
    Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. Thess. 5:21.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •