What Isn't ? Sure you Know?: The 14th Am. Citizen
The following video explains the difference between a primary and sovereign "Citizen of the United States" as denoted by an uppercase "C" at Article 1 Section 2 of the organic or original Constitution, and which remains to be the inherent right of every "Natural Person" in America per Article 1 Section 2 Clause 3 first adopted in 1787; versus....
A secondary and subclass of citizen known as a "citizen of the United States" as denoted by a lowercase "c" under the 14th Amendment, which was ostensibly drafted to provide the same "rights" to recently freed slaves that were secured to free Citizens by the Bill of Rights, and extended to every free Person in the several States by Article 4 Section 2 Clause 1.
Was there such thing as a "U.S. Citizen" or "Citizen of the United States" prior to 1868 ? Of course there was. However, our founding fathers designed our sovereignty to be derived from one's native State first and foremost (and not the federal government as 14th Amendment citizenship is) and then by virtue of our primary State Citizenship may also access federal protections should a stste violate a persons natural rights or legal priveleges.
The organic constitution of 1787 officially recognized natural sovereign rights of the individual - these are rights; all else are priveleges.
To access rights or privelelges one must us a attorney (one who twists), it behooves you to spend a little time understanding the law. We suggest this.
WOE UNTO YOU, LAWYERS!
FRED RODELL
Professor of Law, Yale University
Written in 1939
“Woe unto you, lawyers! For ye have taken away
the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves,
and them that were entering in ye hindered.” — Luke. XI, 52
Contents
- Modern Medicine-Men
- The Law of the Lawyers
- The Way it Works
- The Law at its Supremest
- No Tax on Max
- The Law and the Lady
- Fairy-Tales and Facts
- More about Legal Language
- Incubators of the Law
- A Touch of Social Significance
- Let’s Lay Down the Law
Preface
No lawyer will like this book. It isn’t written for lawyers. It is written for the average man and its purpose is to try to plant in his head, at the least, a seed of skepticism about the whole legal profession, its works and its ways.
In case anyone should be interested, I got my own skepticism early. Before I ever studied law I used to argue occasionally with lawyers – a foolish thing to do at any time. When, as frequently happened, they couldn’t explain their legal points so that they made any sense to me I brashly began to suspect that maybe they didn’t make any sense at all. But I couldn’t know. One of the reasons I went to law school was to try to find out.
At law school I was lucky. Ten of the men under whom I took courses were sufficiently skeptical and common-sensible about the branches of law they were teaching so that, unwittingly of course, they served together to fortify my hunch about the phoniness of the whole legal process. In a sense, they are the intellectual godfathers of this book. And though all of them would doubtless strenuously disown their godchild, I think I owe it to them to name them. Listed alphabetically, they are:
Thurman Arnold, now Assistant Attorney-General of the United States; Charles E. Clark, now Judge of the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals; William O. Douglas, now Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court; Felix Frankfurter, now Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court; Leon Green, now Dean of the Northwestern University Law School; Walton Hamilton, Professor of Law at Yale University; Harold Laski, Professor of Political Science at the London School of Economics; Richard Joyce Smith, now a practicing attorney in New York City; Wesley Sturges, now Director of the Distilled Spirits Institute; and the late Lee Tulin.
By the time I got through law school, I had decided that I never wanted to practice law. I never have. I am not a member of any bar. If anyone should want, not unreasonably, to know what on earth I am doing – or trying to do – teaching law, he may find a hint of the answer toward the end of Chapter IX.
When I was mulling over the notion of writing this book, I outlined my ideas about the book, and about the law, to a lawyer who is not only able but also extraordinarily frank and perceptive about his profession. “Sure,” he said, “but why give the show away?” That clinched it.
F.R.
MODERN MEDICINE-MEN: [click Here for book]
- - - - - - - - SEE ALSO - - - - - - - - -
