Federal Precedence Over The States

by Al Benson Jr.

Member, Board of Directors, Confederate Society of America

A little review of the 14th Amendment shows us that it accomplished certain ends consistent with Yankee/Marxist revolutionary aims for both the War of Northern Aggression and for the period after that revolution.  We ought to get used to referring to it as a revolution for, in truth, it was the first American Revolution.

It was a revolution in which God-given liberties  were exchanged for “privileges and immunities” granted by an all-powerful federal government in Washington.  After the shooting phase of that revolution was over the United States played the part of Esau on a national scale. We traded our God-given birthright for a mess of federal pottage, and now we weep, as did Esau, because we do not have God’s blessing. In fact, if you read Patrick Henry, a case might be made that we did the same thing in 1787 in Philadelphia. At any rate, we don’t have God’s blessing because, in our apostasy, we don’t deserve it.

Instead of enjoying the blessings of God, we now labor under such apostate vehicles as Thaddeus Stevens’ 14th Amendment.

How many even realize that the 14th Amendment redefined citizenship in this country? Up until the War, a man was considered a citizen of the United States due to his first being a citizen of the state he lived in. A man was a United States citizen because he was first a citizen of Texas, or Louisiana, or New Jersey. His state citizenship gave him his status as a U.S. citizen.

After the adoption of the 14th Amendment, however, a man became foremost a citizen of the United States rather than of the state he lived in. His state citizenship was, to all intents and purposes, at best secondary, if even that. This was consistent with Northern revolutionary aims and opened the door for future federal intervention in the various states in areas the federal government  had no business being in.

The Kennedy Brothers, in their book The South Was Right, noted the political gyrations of Thaddeus Stevens and his Yankee/Marxist cohorts. They observed: “To secure enactment of the amendment, the Northern Congress had to accomplish the following: Declare the Southern states outside of the erstwhile indivisible Union. Deny majority rule in the Southern states by the disenfranchisement of large numbers of the white population. Require the Southern states to ratify the amendment as the price of getting back into the Union from which heretofore they had been denied the right to secede.” Did you get all that?

But they continued: “The third point could be turned into a Yankee brain-teaser.  The North, in 1866, removed the Southern states from the Union. This was the same North that in 1861 refused to allow the South to secede from the Union. This same North now declared the Southern states to be non-states. To get back into the Union (that originally the South did not want to be part of anyway,  and from which it had previously been denied the right to secede), it was required to perform the function of a state in that Union, while still  officially no longer a part of that Union, by ratifying an amendment that previously as states in the Union it had legally rejected! Words alone fail to meet the challenge of such pure Yankee logic.” Almost makes you wonder what brand of revolutionary weed Stevens and his pals had been smoking!

Some have, upon reflection, observed that the adoption of the 14th Amendment opened the door for the adoption of the 17th Amendment, the direct election of Senators by popular vote. One can, almost in overview, see an evolutionary process in this, whereby we first lose our state citizenship, then, eventually, even national citizenship, until we all finally become “citizens of the world” much like Karl Marx’s “workers of the world.” Don’t supposed there might be any connection do you?

So Thaddeus Stevens was a moving force in helping to bury the concept of state citizenship in favor of national citizenship. The naïve might be tempted to be charitable and feel that Stevens didn’t fully realize just what he was doing. Sorry, but I have a suspicious mind. Stevens, the professional South-hater, knew exactly what he was doing!

Stevens and his crowd were apostate revolutionaries of the first order. Their main agenda was to alter the American system of government, taking care to maintain the forms while changing the real substance. Unfortunately their revolution succeeded.  We today are living with the results of what they did. Whatever its faults, and they were numerous, the system of government the founders gave us died with the Southern loss of the Marxist/Lincolnist Revolution of 1861. Those who fail to recognize this have missed the boat. We hear so much talk today from sincere folks who have not been on the firing line long enough to know the difference. They shout about  “taking America back.” Back to what??? What most of them fail to realize is that what they want to take us back to is what they grew up with–the “good old days.” Won’t happen, because their “good old days” happened way after the revolution  had been accomplished. They are 150 years too late! You hear the same refrain from them regarding the public school system. They want to take it back to where it was when they grew up, not realizing that it had already been in revolutionary  mode back in the 1830s in his heyday. When something has been bad since day one, what do you “reform” it back to–pre-existence? That might not be a bad idea!

When Stevens introduced the 14th Amendment, some of the more cautious Republicans threatened to remove his third section of it, dealing with the ineligibility of former Confederate leaders to run for Congress until at least 1876. Stevens wasn’t having any of that! Through political maneuvering, at which he was a past master,  he put together a coalition of radicals and Democrats to prevent that change. He pled with them to fully retain that third section. His vindictive anti-Southern nature clearly showed as he pleaded: “It is too lenient for my hard heart. Not only to 1870, but to 18070,  every rebel who shed the blood of loyal men should be prevented from exercising any power in this government.” A true example of Northern charity and forgiveness.  Had Stevens been able to shape his vindictive attitude to conform to Biblical standards the country might have been better off.

However, Stevens lacked such capacity. Long after Stevens’ death, an old political opponent, Jeremiah S. Black, noted of him that: “When he died he was unequaled in this country as a lawyer. He said the smartest things ever said. But his mind, as far as his sense of obligation to God was concerned, was a howling  wilderness.” So noted Fawn Brodie in her biographical work on Stevens.

God stated in both Deuteronomy 32:35 and Romans 12:19 that vengeance belongs to Him, that man is only to execute that which God entrusts to him, and he is to leave vengeance to God. Stevens, in a manner so typical of most revolutionaries and apostates ignored this, as he did most of the rest of Scripture. With his revolutionary mindset, and for his own twisted reasons, he sought vengeance on all whites in the South, the vast majority of whom had never done him any harm.

The 14th Amendment, in its final form, dealt with four different areas. In the first, it made the radical departure of redefining citizenship as a national rather than a state matter. This was an important first step toward making the states mere vassals of the federal deity in Washington. The second section reduced representation in Southern states to a basis of the voting population only. The third section excluded Confederate leaders from office indefinitely, barring a two-thirds vote by Congress. The fourth section repudiated the Confederate debt and upheld the Union’s national debt.

Attempting to explain all the implications of this radical amendment would take more space than I can spare here and if it got too in-depth most would just quit reading. Hopefully these brief comments will give some the incentive to dig into the 14th Amendment, as well as the second 13th Amendment and the 15th Amendment to see what implications these have for us today, especially in regard to our modern “civil rights” movement.

Advertisements

6 thoughts on “Federal Precedence Over The States

  1. TRUE AMERICAN HISTORY
    Al Barrs, Jr.

    14th Amendment Was Never Ratified!
    And is therefore unconstitutional…–Al Barrs, Jr.

    By Moses E. Washington
    Revised 6/1/2003

    Disclaimer:
    The material in this essay is for educational purposes only and not to be construed as legal advice about what you should or should not do. The information herein is to assist you in performing your own due diligence before implementing any strategy…

    Formal notice is hereby given that: You have 10 days after reviewing any material on this Website to notify Truth Sets Us Free (TSUF) in writing of any word, phrase, reference or statement which is inaccurate, incorrect, misleading or not in full compliance with state and Federal law and to give TSUF 30 days to correct and cure any alleged potential flaw. TSUF’s intent is to be in strict compliance with the law.

    What we now call the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is the most controversial
    Amendment that has ever been proposed! (Among other controversial amendments were the other two “Reconstruction Amendments” passed by a rump vindictive radical Union Congress: Amendments 13, 14, and 15.-Al Barrs

    We will see that its proposal and ratification process was fraught with irregularities and unconstitutional actions by a vindictive Union only Congress…

    The Congress Approves but the States Ratify Amendments to the U.S. Constitution!

    In addition to approving proposed amendments, Congress has the power to amend the Constitution (https://www.thoughtco.com/how-to-amend-the-constitution-3368310), but it doesn’t have the constitutional power to ratify any Amendments. And amending the Constitution is a long and arduous process.

    Constitution Article 5, Amending the U.S. Constitution:
    The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

    Both chambers of the Congress must approve the proposed constitutional amendment by a two-thirds majority, after which the measure is sent to the States for ratification or not. The proposed congressional approved amendment must then be approved by three-quarters of State legislatures or citizens in in conference.

    In order to provide historical background for the period in question, let’s review some events that occurred after the Civil War ended.

    In 1865, President Andrew Johnson issued a “Proclamation of Amnesty” for former Southern state residents. This action was in keeping with President Lincoln’s wishes claim ‘to heal the nation’. (Lincoln should have wished to heal the nation, but he didn’t. He waged Total War against the civilian population and their homes and towns using the, even then, despicable “Total War” strategy–it was Lincoln who started his Tariff War, which was supposed to be a little short low-casualty war that got away from him and cost some 630,000 Americans their lives! It wasn’t Jefferson Davis who, with his Commanding General, who crafted the “Anaconda Assault Plan” to surround and enslave the southern agriculture States! No, that was Abe Lincoln and his General-in-Chief Winfield Scott who drew up the Anaconda Plan even before Lincoln was sworn in as President…–Al Barrs)

    Johnson established provisional governments in each of the southern states. (These so called “provisional governments” were nothing more than Martial Law rulers administered with iron hands and the swards and guns of Union military officers and their Union troops!–Al Barrs) The Southern States were instructed ordered to call constitutional conventions in order to form new governments, every step directed by Union military rulers. Each Southern state formed new governments and elected new representatives and government officers. (However if the elected delegates did not act in accordance with the Union Military director’s desires they would dismiss the duly elected delegates and appoint delegates who did what the Commanders told them to do, which is what a “rump” legislature is, including what to and who to vote against and what to vote on! This Union Martial law action on the part of the Union military commanders formed what came to be called “rump” legislatures, which means a legislative body would be part duly elected delegates and part Union Military Commander appointed delegates…–including many black former slaves who could neither read or write…–Al Barrs) At that time, only White men, not women, not previously freed Blacks and not former slave Blacks, had the right to vote in the Union, since the 15th Amendment, which established equal voting (suffrage) rights, had not yet been approved nor ratified by the States.

    Senators and Representatives elected for the U.S. Congress from the former Confederate States of America were also elected by the people or selected by the Union Martial Law Commander. These Southern states representatives were refused admission by the Union Congress when they appear at the opening of the U.S. Congress in Washington City. The various Southern state governments continued to function during 1866. (The Union Congress blatantly violated their own Constitution by denying the Southern States their constitutional right to vote, even though the States had been reinstated into the Union with the right of Suffrage, the right to vote, by President Andrew Johnson!–Al Barrs)

    Before an Amendment can be “ratified” by the States, it must first be proposed…

    The U.S. Constitution provides two methods of proposing an Amendment: By two thirds of the States or by two thirds of both houses of the U.S. Congress.

    The congressional amending method was used in the case of the 14th Amendment. 1) The Constitutional Article 5 Section that discusses amendments reads: “No State, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal “suffrage” (vote) in the U.S. Senate”! 2) When the U.S. Congress “proposed” the 14th Amendment, twenty-three Senators were unlawfully ‘excluded’ from the proceedings (They were “locked out” of the U.S. Senate chambers, that refused to seat these constitutional delegates!–Al Barrs) from the U. S. Senate, in order to secure a two-thirds vote for the adoption of proposed Amendment. Those Senators excluded and locked out of the Senate chambers included both Senators from eleven Southern States and one Senator from New Jersey. This constitutional failure, by the Union Senate, alone is sufficient to invalidate the so-called fourteenth Amendment because it was never properly proposed and never properly ratified by the States!

    1 U.S. Constitution, Article 5
    2 ibid.

    When an amendment is proposed by the Congress, it must be “ratified by the Legislatures of three-fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths of the States …”

    3) When the proposed amendment was sent to the States for ratification, there were thirty-seven states in the Union/United States at that time. This meant that ratification required the approval of twenty-eight of the thirty-seven states!

    Said another way, it would only take ten states rejecting the 14th Amendment to defeat it.

    The rump congressionally proposed 14th Amendment was sent to the States for ratification in June of 1866. …By March 1867, twenty States had ratified and thirteen had rejected the proposed 14th Amendment. This mean that the amendment failed, or so one would think who studies the U.S. Constitution!!!

    These totals do not include the actions of Tennessee, which is generally regarded as ratifying the proposed 14th Amendment. The Tennessee legislature was not in session when the proposed 14th Amendment was sent, so a special session of the Tennessee legislature had to be called.

    The Tennessee “Senate” ratified the proposed 14th Amendment. However, the Tennessee House of Representatives could not assemble a quorum as required in order to legally act…

    Finally, after several days and “considerable effort (Pressure and military force from United State Military Martial Law Commanders,–Al Barrs) two of the recalcitrant members of the House were arrested and brought into a committee room opening into the Chamber of the House by U.S. Military troops. They refused to vote when their names were called, whereupon the Speaker ruled that there was no quorum!

    The Speaker’s decision, however, was overruled, and the Amendment was declared ratified on July 19, 1866, by a vote of 43 to 11, the two members under arrest in the adjoining committee room not voting. 4) After learning that the proposed amendment’s failure, the U.S. Congress unconstitutionally passed the Reconstruction Act of March 2, 1867 (the 14th Amendment).

    This unconstitutional act of the Tennessee House of Representative’s “Speaker” overthrew and annulled the existing Southern State governments of the ten southern states that had rejected the ratification of the 14th Amendment!!!

    Recall that these new Southern State governments had just been established in 1865 with new State Constitutions. The unconstitutional act by the Tennessee House Speaker, sanctioned by the hostile and vindictive Union Congress, placed these States under Union martial law and required the ratification of the proposed amendment before Southern States could be readmitted to representation in the U.S. Congress, (which was unconstitutional and only achieved at the barrel of Union guns!–Al Barrs)

    U.S. President Andrew Johnson vetoed the “Reconstruction Act” because he believed it was unconstitutional! (And, President Jackson was right; the three amendments (13, 14, and 15th) of the “Reconstruction Act” were unconstitutional!–Al Barrs)

    President Johnson’s veto message read: “I submit to Congress whether this measure is
    not in its whole character, scope and object without precedent and without authority, in
    palpable conflict with the plainest provisions of the Constitution, and utterly destructive
    of those great principles of liberty and humanity for which our ancestors on both sides of
    the Atlantic have shed so much blood and expended so much treasure.” President
    Johnson went on to point out that each of the Southern States had “legitimate” United States governments! (Plus Lincoln would never concede that the southern agriculture states had withdrew from the United States and formed their own agriculture based nation in March of 1861.–Al Barrs)

    “It is not denied that the States in question (former States of the Confederate States of America nation–Al Barrs) have each of them an actual government with all the powers, executive, judicial, and legislative, which properly belong to a ‘free and soverigned State’.”

    3 ibid
    4 Adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, H. E. Flack, p. 165; Tenn. House Journal (Extra Session), 1866,
    p. 25

    “They are organized like the other States of the Union, and, like them, they make,
    administer, and execute the laws which concern their domestic State affairs!”

    The U.S. Congress was undaunted as it overrode President Johnson’s veto of the “Reconstruction Act”!

    After the “Reconstruction Act” was passed (unconstitutionally forced and President Johnson’s veto overridden), two states (Nebraska and Iowa) ratified the proposed amendment and three states (New Jersey, Ohio and Oregon; 5) reversed their ratifications! So, without considering the actions taken under Reconstruction, the final tally was nineteen for, sixteen against, and two (California and Tennessee) not acting.

    As a result of the “Reconstruction Acts” three Amendments were passed by the rump U.S. Congress in total between the dates of March 2 and July 19, 1867. The ten Southern States were organized by Union Military officers into military districts in which martial law were declared and cruelly enforced at gunpoint when in the best interest of the Union commanders!

    Their lawfully constituted legislature was illegally removed by U.S. “military force” (as in War!) and they were replaced by illegitimate (rump) legislatures selected by the Union Military Martial Law commander. Seven of these legislatures eventually was forced by Union military commanders and bribed to ratify the anti-constitutional 14th Amendment.

    The “official” vote tally is another source of controversy!

    On July 20, 1868, William H. Seward, Union Secretary of State, issued a Proclamation 6) that listed the “official” results. His tally showed twenty-three states that voluntarily ratified, six states that ratified under martial law military threats and force, military coercion and bribery, and two states that voluntarily reversed their ratifications.

    Seward said in his official proclamation that he was not authorized as Secretary of State “to determine and decide doubtful questions as to the authenticity of the organization of State legislatures or as to the power of any State legislature to recall a previous act or resolution of ratification”.

    Seward also said that the Amendment (14th) was valid “if the resolutions of the legislatures of Ohio and New Jersey, ratifying the aforesaid amendment, are to be deemed as remaining of full force and effect, notwithstanding the subsequent resolutions of the legislatures of these States”.

    Seward’s report also called into question the ratifications of (Southern) States who were under Union martial Law at the time following the end of Lincoln’s War!

    I think you will agree that Seward’s reservations were rather startling. It is patently obvious to any thinking person that if a State has the right to ratify an amendment that it equally has the right to withdraw the ratification. (Yes, and this same principle applied to the Southern agriculture States what had withdrawn from the “voluntary” Union!–Al Barrs)

    It is equally obvious that any action which is taken under compulsion [an irresistible persistent impulse to perform an act] (southern states vote to ratify) is an invalid action!!!

    The U.S. Congress was not satisfied with Seward’s proclamation due to the reservations it contained. On July 21, 1868, the U.S. Congress passed a Joint Resolution 7) that declaring that three fourths of the several States of the Union had ratified the 14th Amendment. (They had not, that was an outright lie!–Al Barrs)

    On July 28, 1868, Seward bowed to the action of the Union Congress and issued his Proclamation (LIE) declaring that three-fourths of the states had ratified the Amendment. (Seward falsified and violated the U.S. Constitution!–Al Barrs)

    In such an environment, one would hope that the highest court in our nation, the U.S. Supreme Court, would bring some clarity. But alas, such is not the case. In one of the leading cases on the validity of the 14th Amendment the court stated; “The legislatures of Georgia, North Carolina and South Carolina had rejected the 14th Amendment in November and December, 1866. New governments were erected in those States (and in others) under the direction of the Union Congress and their Union military commanders and troops. The new legislatures ratified the Amendment, that of North Carolina on July 4, 1868, that of South Carolina on July 9, 1868, and that of Georgia on July 21, 1868.” 8) In this case, the Union Supreme Court did not bother to rule on the constitutionality of the Union Congress sweeping away valid State legislatures in the “Reconstruction Acts”. The Union Supreme Court overlooked that it previously had held that at no time were these Southern States out of the Union 9) (We know that was false–the southern agriculture states had formed their own agriculture based nation in early March of 1861! True Lincoln would never admit that the agriculture states had lawfully seceded from the Union, but his failure to recognize those facts had nothing to do with constitutional rights, but more to do with his narcissistic mind and thoughts; and in that case Lincoln had ordered military assaults and “Civil War” on the withdrawn Southern agriculture state’s residents!–Al Barrs)

    5 Oregon Senate Journal, 1868, pp. 66 and 131; Oregon House Journal, 1868, p. 273
    6 Statutes at Large, v 15, p. 706
    7 House Journal; 40th Congress, 2nd Session, p. 1126.

    In the Coleman case, the court did make a slip to reveal that they understood what had happened in the case of the 14th Amendment:

    “Whenever official notice is received at the Union Department of State that any Amendment proposed to the Constitution of the United States has been adopted, according to the constitutional provisions of the U.S. Constitution, the Union. Secretary of State shall forthwith (immediately) cause the amendment to be published, with his certificate, specifying the States by which the same may have been adopted, and that the same has become valid, to all intents and purposes, as a part of the Constitution of the United States.” [Emphasis Added]

    The Supreme Court, in the Coleman case, did lightly review questions pertaining to the unconstitutional ratification of the 14th Amendment, and of attempts by two States to rescind their previous ratification of the Amendment.

    “…the question of the efficacy of ratifications by State legislatures, in the light of previous rejection or attempted withdrawal, should be regarded as a political question pertaining to the political departments, with the ultimate authority in the Congress in the exercise of its control over the promulgation of the adoption of the Amendment.” [Emphasis Added]

    One would hope that the highest court in the land (The Supreme Court) would properly exercise their Constitutional responsibilities to provide “check and balances” to the other branches of the Federal Government. The Supreme Court jurist’s statement that it was an issue for the political arena was an act of cowardice and wholly inconsistent with the high court’s pattern of judicial statutory annulment!!!

    The precedent for ‘judicial statutory annulment’ was established in 1803 where The Court ruled “”…it is apparent that the Framers of the U.S. Constitution contemplated that instrument as a rule for the Government of courts, as well as that of the legislature. (The Constitution is the foundation laws of the United States of America!–Al Barrs) Why otherwise does it direct the justices to take an oath to support it?” 10) The unconstitutional practice of “judicial review” [as it is also called “legislating from the Bench!] continues on even to this day.

    “Judicial Review” too was a Supreme Court created “doctrine” not a law! Congress does not create nor the President sign; it was an act of Supreme Court Chief Justice Marshal in 1803 to create a precedence, a court created “doctrine”–The Court created Marshal’s doctrine out of thin air to serve their own political purpose and to use as ‘precedence’ to rule on other cases in the future! The Court would use Court Created precedence and doctrines to base their future case decisions rather than relying on the Constitution and Bill of Rights as it is sworn to do! It supplanted the Founders “separation of powers” doctrine and gave the U.S. Supreme Court authority over the other two Government Branches; the Legislative and the Executive Branches of the Federal Government!!! Precedent and doctrines are nothing more than a rogue court’s attempt to bypass the Constitution!–Al Barrs)

    8 Coleman v. Miller, 307 U.S. 448, 59 S.Ct. 972 (1938)
    9 White v. Hart (1871), 13 Wall. 646, 654
    10 Marbury vs. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803)

    It is often used as a legal tool to justify taking a position that differs from the legislature and/or constitution when the court wants to nullify a law.

    It appears that the court uses this technique only when it suites their motive and not necessarily to protect the rights of citizens…

    The legal validity of the ratification of the 14th Amendment has often been disputed!

    The Utah Supreme Court once ruled that the ratification of the 14th Amendment was invalid 11) For more than a hundred years now, the courts have applied the unconstitutional 14th Amendment to cases that have come before them–including Roe vs. Wade. And although questions have been raised about both its language meaning and the legal correctness of its adoption process, Federal challenges to the ratification of the 14th Amendment have always fallen on deaf ears. Its long time usage and the lateness of the hour doctrines have allowed the U.S. Supreme Court to accept the 14th Amendment as law (It isn’t law, it is unconstitutional!–Al Barrs) 12)

    11 See Dyett vs. Turner, 439 Pacific 266 (1968), and the numerous other cites therein.
    12 See Coleman vs. Miller, 307 U.S. 433 (1939).

  2. Pingback: Federal Precedence Over The States | NCRenegade

  3. Pingback: Federal Precedence Over The States | Land & Livestock International, Inc.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s