“We the People”, but, Who are We? – Part II

“We the People”, but, Who are We? – Part II

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
July 19, 2011

In the first part, Justice Taney [Chief Justice of the Supreme Court who delivered the Decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1856)], speaking from the past, explained who was, and, who was not of that class of people known as “We the People.  Recapping that post:

We think they [descendents of slaves, whether free, or not] are not, and that they are not included, and were not intended to be included, under the word ‘citizens’ in the Constitution, and can therefore claim none of the rights and privileges which that instrument provides for and secures to citizens of the United States.  On the contrary, they were at that time considered as a subordinate and inferior class of beings, who had been subjugated by the dominant race, and, whether emancipated or not, yet remained subject to their authority, and had no rights or privileges but such as those who held the power and the Government might choose to grant them.

* * *

It is true, every person, and every class and description of persons, who were at the time of the adoption of the Constitution recognised as citizens in the several States, became also citizens of this new political body; but none other; it was formed by them, and for them and their posterity, but for no one else.  And the personal rights and privileges guaranteed to citizens of this new sovereignty were intended to embrace those only who were then members of the several State communities, or who should afterwards by birthright or otherwise become members, according to the provisions of the Constitution and the principles on which it was founded.  It was the union of those who were at that time members of distinct and separate political communities into one political family, whose power, for certain specified purposes, was to extend over the whole territory of the United States.  And it gave to each citizen rights and privileges outside of his State which he did not before possess, and placed him in every other State upon a perfect equality with its own citizens as to rights of person and rights of property; it made him a citizen of the United States.

So, the rights and privileges were not conferred upon those who were not citizens at the time of adoption of the Constitution, and their descendents and others.  Those rights, too, are defined as inclusive, regardless of whether he is in his state or another state.

So, in 1867, the 14th Amendment to the Constitution was ratified.  However, it did not convey rights, only privileges and immunities, to wit [Fourteenth Amendment]:

Section 1–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 laws.

However, this Amendment did not change or undo that which Taney had described as the “citizens of the United States”, though a new class was created by the 14th Amendment.

Now, I know a lot of people don’t see it that way.  They believe that the 14th Amendment merged the ex-slaves and their descendents into the same class of people that had previously held the title of “citizens of the United States”, or, “We the People”.  However, if you will note the wording of the 14th Amendment, you will see that “rights” were not conveyed, only “privileges and immunities”.  Now, this may seem small, or insignificant, though that is because we have been subjected to “political correctness” and mountains of legislation establishing “civil rights”.  However, the Framers never referred to the rights protected by the Constitution as civil, since civil implies granted by government — which is exactly what the legislature has done — enact laws granting civil rights.  These fundamental rights granted by God are not granted by government, and, they are not civil rights.  They were the object and goal of the colonists from April 19, 1775 to the ratification of the Constitution, 14 years later.

What is very important to understand is that when a law is enacted, or a constitution or amendment ratified, the intent at the time of enactment or ratification is, and must be, what was intended — at that time.  To think otherwise is to allow the legislation, or even the Constitution, to mean what was not intended by the sleight of redefining words, concepts, or even enforcement.  If that is how we are to operate, we are not a nation of laws rather, of man, and that man who sits in Washington; Member of Congress, President,. Justice or Administrative Agency head is free to promulgate what he wants the law to be and applies not what was intended to be, rather, what he desires it to be.

As James Madison said, in Federalist Papers #62:

It poisons the blessing of liberty itself. It will be of little avail to the people, that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man, who knows what the law is today, can guess what it will be tomorrow. Law is defined to be a rule of action; but how can that be a rule, which is little known, and less fixed?

So, as you contemplate what is said in this Part, understand that only the words of those who were alive at the time of these activities can tell is what they meant.  It is only their words, not what some ACLU lawyer might try to make them out to be, that we must be obedient to.  To be obedient to any other interpretation is, at best, disobedience to the Constitution.

We have seen the affect of the 14th Amendment on the right, privileges and immunities of those who were and were not of the class known as “We the People”.  Now the question arises as to whether the 14th Amendment changed who “We the People” are, and, if so, what proof do we have that only “privileges and immunities, not rights, were conveyed by that Amendment.  That will be the subject of the Part III.


Part I can be found at “We the People”, but, Who are We? – Part I

Part III can be found at “We the People”, but, Who are We? — Part III

Part IV can be found at “We the People”, but, Who are We? — Part IV

Part V can be found at “We the People”, but, Who are We? — Part V 



  1. Richard Welser says:

    Note also, the use of the word ‘persons’ in the above. Just what IS a ‘person’ and why didn’t the 14th amendment use the word ‘people’…?

  2. Hunt says:

    “Person” was redefined, well after the 14th Amendment, to include corporations. At that point in time, persons would be other than people, and, as such, were the subject of the Amendment. The Amendment is discussed in much greater detail in:

    The Fourteenth Article in Amendment to the Constitution.

  3. Richard Welser says:

    In reading the initial portion of your history of the government through the end of the Civil War, I noticed that you did not touch on the departure of the Southern States sine die …. and the fact that original congress .. the what would you call it, the ‘real’ congress of the original organic Constitutional government has never been reconstituted lawfully..

    You also did not discuss the Lieber code enacted by Lincoln…and the state of emergency never rescinded. Although you may deal with it elsewhere. Now, I note that I am just an amateur in this process of learning… but those do appear to be two big issues…. especially as it appears the emergencies have accumlated to three or four, I guess, and extend into the present. So, do we have a government… legislative or otherwise… or simply and Empire with a CEO Emperor?

    By the way, I am note being contentious… I simply want to make sure that as I learn this history… I leave nothing out. Along those lines, I think Mark Wasmuth’s powerpoint presentation is worth watching..


    there appear to be so many nuances to this whole mess….

    and, as far as more current (but not exactly current) jurisdictional issues and the IRS pertain.. and available from your site (thank you for this a lot) the pdf by Nord Davis has been very enlightening…

  4. Hunt says:

    I have not run across any reference (old) that they left, sine die (without day), tough they may well have, or, the regular session of Congress may have ended sine die, since the majority has to vote on such a motion for adjournment.

    That aside, I see no place to fit that within the context of what I am writing, nor do I see it as significant in the entire Fourteenth Amendment story.

    I have mention ed the Lieber Code, and have written about it, before. It made sense, and it does not have the implication that some want to give it. If you would like to read it, it is posted at http://outpost-of-freedom.com/library/. It was put into place to require that the soldiers behave toward civilians. I find no fault with it, and I believe that if it comes to blows to restore Constitutional government in this country, we need to adopt something similar to it. In fact, I have written such in my Plan for the Restoration of Constitutional Government (http://www.outpost-of-freedom.com/blog/?p=365).

    I don’t want to detract from what others have written, however, I have read so many that make, how do I say this, rather artistic leaps, in an effort to make something appear other than what it really is. You will not that I don’t take a phrase or a sentence, leaving the context out, rather,m include the entire paragraph. Though boring, what is said need sot be in context to all that was said.

    I did go to the link you provided and found only videos, no power point presentation. I prefer to read to learn rather than watch some cut and paste video that is quite capable of being deceptive (see Because YouTube said so… – http://www.outpost-of-freedom.com/blog/?p=406).

    We can either pursue what we believe to be what was intended by the Framers, or, we can pursue that which we have been told was intended by the Framers. Many of the current patriot mythology is based upon the latter, as are many Supreme Court decisions since the 1930s.

    • Richard Welser says:


      I have come to appreciate your replies. It is nice to encounter and participate in rational discussion.

      And it is nice to learn. There are many voices and yours is well appreciated.


  5. […] YouTube Said So….“ “‘We the People,’ But, Who Are We?  (Parts 1, 2, 3, 4, & 5)” “Divide & Conquer“ “Factions – The Chains of […]

Leave a Reply