You try to appear as if you are an intellectual, but with each new posting you show that there is a layer of dishonesty, ignorance, and hatred that is just under the surface.
No, you just don't like what I'm conveying. There is no hatred involved, let alone dishonestly. As far as ignorance, I readily admit that I am ignorant of many subjects, many of which simply because I have no interests in them. However when it comes to the topic of who did what based on their beliefe in the superiority/inferiority of themselves and others,
due to race, I found it necessary to educate myself in order to be able to counter the lies, deceit and misconceptions (to be generous) of white racists who are still attempting to wreck havoc on the lives of non-whites, but particularly those people of African descent.
I have not read any further than your first statement above because that needed to be addressed first and foremost. I'm address the rest of your comment if necessary in a separate post.
And for the record, I find it interesting that you believe me to being
trying to appear as an intellectual. I
am smart or intelligent if you prefer, not simply because I believe myself to be (I do, because that's what our teachers have told us getting good grades means) but because others have certified me to be. Understand? Unlike protectionist for example, who believes he's better, smarter, more intelligent than
all of the African Americans on this board but has shown nothing to support his beliefs apparently other than he's not African American.
Let me make this short for you. These are YOUR words:
"
I have not read any further than your first statement above..."
What you seek is bias confirmation that validates your own views. Everything else is racist. Until you can argue my points better than I can, you are ignorant. I can argue your points all day long and never miss a beat of the standard canard. It's been forced fed down me for a number of decades.
Nobody needs to waste valuable time trying to master an invalid argument. You're a dumb ass buddy and not reading your drivel is not about confirmation bias. Whoever you think this country was founded for has been changed by the legal process of amending the constitution. The white man was allowed to stay here because the indigenous people here did not believe that anybody had the right to own the land. And their belief makes sense because we only live for a period of time but the land remains when we are gone. It takes 2/3'rds of the states to ratify an amendment, and since the south had decided to form it's own country, wage war and lost, the winning side had every right to impose rules on the seceding states in order to allow them to rejoin the union. So it's like this, running your mouth on the internet with this bogus garbage does nothing. Take your case to the nation. You claim to be Mr. Big time so gather up the other radicalized scrubs and organize a national movement to rescind the 14th Amendment and see what you get. They shut trump up about ending the 14th Amendment and he's the president. You will be sent back to the survivalist compound too.
The 14th amendment, as it is treated, is unconstitutional.
It would be constitutional, IF it were treated as Jacob Howard said it was to be, but 20th century liberal loons twisted it out of it's intended design, to suit their purposes of increasing their power, and Democrats, desperate for votes now continue the wreckage.
How can it be unconstitutional when it's part of the U.S. Constitution?
Which part of the 14th amendment are you taking exception to, and how is it negatively impacting your life?
Just because the 14th Amendment is in the Constitution does not mean it passed constitutional muster. Government has the
power to declare things legal, but they do not always have the
authority.
Normally your question here would be off topic; however, if nullified, the 14th Amendment would have far reaching racial implications that would have to be dealt with by applying other legal doctrines and case law. The links I provide show that the 14th Amendment is illegal because the process was not followed that allows an amendment to become law.
PRIOR to the 14th Amendment becoming law, the people had
unalienable Rights. The courts determined that those Rights were inherent, God given, natural,
absolute,
above the law, and not subject to alienation. Legal dictionaries defined the word
unalienable as not subject to alienation. The government could not take those Rights. Period. End of story. In a famous gun control case, the United States Supreme Court ruled in one of their first rulings:
"
The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence."
United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876)
In other words, the Constitution does not grant Rights; it merely guarantees them.
Unalienable Rights predate the Constitution. But the United States Supreme Court illegally legislated from the bench and created another branch of law to circumvent the
absolute nature of
unalienable Rights. My links prove, unequivocally, that the 14th Amendment unequivocally created two classes of citizenship: Preamble Citizens and 14th Amendment citizens.
Fourteenth Amendment citizens are only guaranteed privileges and immunities. We sometimes refer to these as "
rights," but they are not
unalienable Rights. "
Rights" are merely grants by the government.
Unalienable Rights are the codification of that part of the Declaration of Independence which reads:
"
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.-"
In order to circumvent the law, the United States Supreme Court began using a synonym for
unalienable. It is
inalienable. Then the United States Supreme Court defined the word inalienable this way:
(
Inalienable) Rights which are not capable of being surrendered or transferred
without the consent of the one possessing such rights
. Morrison v. State, Mo. App., 252 S.W.2d 97, 101
.
Notice that
unalienable Rights cannot be
aliened. Inalienable "
Rights" all of a sudden could be aliened
if you consented. This changed the origin of the Right. You cannot forfeit an
unalienable Right (for example, you do not have a Right to kill yourself. The Right to Life was given by a Creator (your God, whomever you deem that to be.) The government dropped the word
unalienable from its legal lexicon (it's no longer a word in Black's Law Dictionary despite that the word
unalienable appears in the official version of the Declaration of Independence.) The government laid claim to being the grantor of all your "
rights." How did that impact my life?
The government gets to interfere in my religion, telling me what I can and cannot believe, taxing my beliefs according to the government's acceptance of my tenets of faith.
The government has determined the value of my life and how I'm allowed to defend it, while, at the same time telling me it's my responsibility to defend my individual life and the cops only protect society as a whole.
When the National ID / REAL ID Act was passed, it mandated the Socialist Surveillance Number ...ooops "
Social Security Number" and the government now claims I'm their property (a slave) and they monitor my every movement 24 / 7 / 365, either approving or disapproving of my every move within this country. AND they subject us to the unconstitutional income tax (a plank from the Communist Manifesto) in order to maintain control. The government likes to call this the
equal protection of the laws (14th Amendment language.)
I'd continue on, but posts need to have a limit. I've already exceeded mine, but will give you more examples if those are not good enough.
