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

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

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
August 3, 2011

 

In Part I, we established what the Supreme Court determined to be “We the People”, or, “citizens of the United States”, prior to the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment.

In Part II, we saw that the Fourteenth Amendment conferred to those not of “We the People”, regardless of prior status, a new class of people who are granted “privileges and immunities”, though not the rights inherent with “We the People”.

In Part III, we see that within a few years of ratification of the 14th Amendment, the Supreme Court confirms that “rights” were not conveyed by that Amendment.

In Part IV, we found that the Supreme Court did recognize that there was a difference between a citizen of a state and a citizen of the United States, and that the latter was protected (jurisdiction existed) by the Fourteenth Amendment and to the former, it did not (no jurisdiction).

Now, we will move forward, 56 years, to 1964, to a case that reaffirms the classes of citizen, though begins to erode the protections previously provided to citizens of the United States.

The case is Malloy v. Hogan, 378 U.S. 1, and involves a discussion by the Court of just which Amendments (Bill of Rights) are extended to those who seek protection under the Fourteenth Amendment, when it says:

It was on the authority of that decision that the Court said in 1908 in Twining v.  New Jersey, supra, that “it is possible that some of the personal rights safeguarded by the first eight Amendments against National action may also be safeguarded against state action, because a denial of them would be a denial of due process of law.”

So, the question that arose in this case is, to what extent does the Fourteenth Amendment apply to the protection of rights, and, which rights are protected.  It redefines what was said in Twining, and requires that any right being protected “be a denial of the due process of law“.  This is a simple paraphrase of “the equal protection of the laws”, from the Fourteenth Amendment.  So, it simply expands that singular authority to include speech, press, and other rights within the first eight amendments, so long as “due process” can be brought into the equation.

It did not, however, even begin to address anything that would remove, or affect, the nature of the two classes of citizen.  They remain unimpaired and intact.

Since the Courts will use a stepping stone process in “revising” laws to a more modern “interpretation”, Malloy afforded the Court the opportunity to undermine the distinction between the two classes.  However, they chose not to walk upon that sacred ground.  Their absence of comment on the two classes leaves that distinction intact.

So, we can see that from Dred Scott (Part I), in 1854, the Court established a foundation of this country as being built upon, by, and for, a certain class of people.  This is probably best defined by the wording of Justice Taney, in that decision, to wit:

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 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.

For the sake of discussion, this sacred class (within the United States) shall be referred to as “We the People”.  But, perhaps, we should endeavor, with a bit more precision, to define just what/who those “We the People” were/are, in light of what Justice Taney said.

After much thought, I can only come up with three possibilities that might shed light on Taney’s description of that class known as “We the People”.

  1. That it would include only those who are defined by the rather common acronym, “WASP”, meaning “White Anglo-Saxon Protestant”.  When we consider that in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries, Jews were not allowed to reside in some of the colonies; that loathing of Catholics (Popists) was common through most of the colonies, during that period, more effectually demonstrated by the objection to the Quebec Act of 1774, allowing Catholics to vote and hold office in Canada, are indicative of the sympathies of the times;
  2. Caucasians of European descent, which would include perhaps 99% of those who had immigrated to the colonies to begin life, anew; or,
  3. Those of Indo-European language groups (first defined in 1647 and including English, Dutch, Greek, Latin, Persian, German, Slavic, Celtic and Baltic languages), thus having a common heritage and culture, at least in the distant past.

There is no way that we can interpret, from what Justice Taney said, just who “We the People” were, though it is clear by the context of his description that it would include those above described peoples, or combinations thereof, “but for no one else.

Then, the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified and granted citizenship to people who were not of this class, “We the People”.  Further, it granted then only privileges and immunities.  It did not grant them rights.

This position (distinction between classes) is further supported by the ratification of the 15th Amendment (granting the right of suffrage (voting), regardless of “race, color, or previous condition of servitude”.

Then, in 1874, the Court, in Happersett (Part III), made clear that the Fourteenth Amendment did not convey rights.  However, the Constitution makes clear that there are rights retained by the people (We the People), so since there cannot be conflict between the Constitution and an AMENDMENT (unless expressly resolved in the amendment), the distinction is further enhanced.

So, for all intents and purposes, there are four classes of people in this country, today:

  • “We the People”, those descended from the Framers, or otherwise within the principles of the original Constitution, who have retained their rights;
  • Those made citizens by the Fourteenth Amendment, with the privileges and immunities granted therein, and any rights specifically bestowed, by subsequent amendments;
  • Those who are here, lawfully and in accordance with all laws, as visitors, and who have not violated any conditions of the permission granted to visit; and,
  • Those who are here unlawfully, that have entered in violation of our laws or have violated the conditions of their permissive visitation.

The foundation of this country, then, rests upon an understanding that the purpose of the Constitution, and the country, is to provide a home for those of the class, “We the People”.  That others who choose to assimilate into the American Culture do so with that understanding, and the understanding that they are the beneficiaries of all privileges and immunities, though only those rights specifically granted.

It can also be concluded that any who have designs contrary to the support and continuation of the United States, as intended by the Framers, and described herein, are inconsistent with the purpose of the country, and, as such, are against the Constitution and should be deemed unacceptable and unwanted visitors.

If the United States is to return to its former stature as the beacon to the world of freed enterprise by a free people, we must return, also, to the concept that allowed such concepts of freedom to prosper, and grow, in a rather short history, to what it had become by the end of the Nineteenth Century.

It can return to that stature only if we do return to those principles that made this nation great.  Absent a dedication to that purpose, we are destined to be nothing more than a footnote in history.  And, that will be our rightful place, if we fail to act to secure that which we hold so dear.

Thus concludes this series.

* * * * *

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

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

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

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

2 Responses to ““We the People”, but, Who are We? – Part V”

  1. Linkhaan says:

    I Have read the Dred Scott case about a generation ago. I have read your interpretation:

    After much thought, I can only come up with three possibilities that might shed light on Taney’s description of that class known as “We the People”.
    1.That it would include only those who are defined by the rather common acronym, “WASP”, meaning “White Anglo-Saxon Protestant”. When we consider that in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries, Jews were not allowed to reside in some of the colonies; that loathing of Catholics (Popists) was common through most of the colonies, during that period, more effectually demonstrated by the objection to the Quebec Act of 1774, allowing Catholics to vote and hold office in Canada, are indicative of the sympathies of the times;
    2.Caucasians of European descent, which would include perhaps 99% of those who had immigrated to the colonies to begin life, anew; or,
    3.Those of Indo-European language groups (first defined in 1647 and including English, Dutch, Greek, Latin, Persian, German, Slavic, Celtic and Baltic languages), thus having a common heritage and culture, at least in the distant past.

    There is no way that we can interpret, from what Justice Taney said, just who “We the People” were, though it is clear by the context of his description that it would include those above described peoples, or combinations thereof, “but for no one else.

    The Mayflower, the Nina, Pinta and the Santa Maria were all Slave ships…check the archives, where hidden history is revealed…

    My overstanding is this: During the time the Constitution was written most of this country was called Morocco (Moors), then Spain,then Mexico, now U.S. When the colonies were created and named, the people that were already on this land Morocco (Moors), and now called the United States,where the colonies were create, had now been taken from Morocco (which the supreme court dubbed Africa,a create name giving jurisdictional claim) to the newly created colonies by and through name only.

    THE SO-CALLED AMERICAN REVOLUTION WERE FOUGHT BETWEEN THE VERY SAME PEOPLE, MOORS FIGHTING MOORS, WITH MANY DIFFERENT NAMES.ONE REASON GEORGE WASHINGTON WAS ABLE TO FIGHT FOR BOTH SIDES.FRENCH, INDIAN WARS ARE THE VERY SAME PEOPLE FIGHTING….this war(American Revolution) was brother against brother, fighting for the caucasians to remain here.While the brothers (Moors) were fighting the they (Moors) were losing control of their government here. So, the Moors taught the Caucasians the science of government and how to govern themselves. Until the Moor are ready to assume and govern their land, Continent of America.This is happening now.This country(U.S.)is going to financially devastate itself, get on par with rest of the other countries in America,put under one Repubic form of government as before the TREATY OF GHENT and return to the Moors, as the Moors had turned it over during the Amerian Revolution and the Treaty of Ghent.It’s going to be quite cruel how the U.S. government is going to remove people of the(ir) land cross this country to return it to the Moors.The process has began.The Katrina disaster,Gulf oil spill….look for more disaster to come, solely for this purpose of returning the land to the Ancient Ones.

    Answer these questions and statements for thought if you think so-called blacks came from Africa over seas:
    Wouldn’t it be amazing to find out that the country we are told is called Africa was not named Africa during the entire “supposed” African slave trade and there was no country named India in 1492.

    1. In 400 yrs there has never been a slave ship found of the eastern seaboard or any where in the world including under water.Even though you can go back 300 yrs and find that George Washington’s house still exist. While Slavery was suppose to have been just over a mere 150 yrs ago.

    2.You mean to tell me in over 400 yrs of suppose to be slavery, there were no hurricanes… and no ship being sunk.NO actual pictures of slave ship(s) any where in museums, archives, etc.

    3. The 40 acres and a mule are treaties written by Moors( treaties can only be written by sovereigns)(The U.S. was used as a mediator for all the Moor’s tribes to let free their captive Moors, whom later became known as the “Freedmen”.In those treaties(there were many, representing numerous Moor’s tribes).It states that when the tribes members has come into knowing who (status) they are, they will be entitled to the 40 acres and a mule and a certain sum of money(can’t recall the amount at this time) held by the Bureau of Internal Revenue,for and to their decendants, that still exist today, Moors.But they (Moors) will “never” get this, if they continue that their “status” are black, negro and colored.These are slave ward status(class).

    4.Now people are known by their names, which denotes their Nationality which came from the Nation (land) inwhich they and their fore parents came from.Now… You watch the olympics and tour de france, european soccer,have you ever seen these names in europe: Washington, Franklin, Williams,Jones, jackson, Hanson,Hancock,Hamilton, these names are Moor’s names from this land which is called America today.
    5. Do know of anyone that has 40 acres from the treaties written in 1866, I do, and they are not caucasians….land not on tax roll…

    6.Do you know of any one that has land given their fore parents by the King of England (do I hear rights of a King) after the so-called American Revolution and also given out during the time period after the Treaty of Ghent,I do, and not any of them are caucasians.Land is not on tax roll.

    The Washitaw Nation (Moors) has taken the United states to court and the Sup Crt has returned over 68,000 acres of stolen land dubbed as “louisiana Purchase ” to the Moors. Land taken of tax roll.If you think people classed as black, negro and colored, etc.,were slave and came over to the U.S. as slaves,Then why are their land been return to them all over the U.S. by the Sup Crt. and taken completely of the tax records.Slave pay taxes, sovereigns where ever they are, do not pay taxes.

    Now, if you called yourself white, negro, caucasian, black, African-American you are “NOT’ considered ‘We The People”…..As to the court… “STATUS”, is first and foremost in any proceeding. No one is Negro, a caucasian, a white, a black, a colored, these are all adjectives,(and given status by corporate U.S.) which describes a noun(inwhich, noun is a person, place or thing). These status class are synonymous with a corporate slave class.These class of people are considered ‘Res” all courts have jurisdiction over the “Thing”. Your Nationality is your Status that brings you into the common fold of the family of nations.Why would any one want to be a state (colony) citizen, with rights and previledge from the Corporate slave ward state inwhich over 96% of caucasian people during that colonial period were enslaved by?…. Corporation cannot give you rights, “only” priviledge in the form of rights, for Black, white people, hence, “color of law” was created for those of the white class and black class.

    If you are a part of the constitution, the constitution “cannot” protect you.

    You speak of English and Briton(Originally spelled)and Anglo-Saxons….Read and check the Archives of who the the english, britons, anglo-saxons truly were. I will tell you, but after reading, I hope you will cross reference with the Archives….Read “Ancient and Modern Britons” written in 1884 by MacRitchie….The British, english, anglo-saxons,are “ALL” Moors and decendants of the Moors, the very same people whom were given the status and has blindly taken on the class/status as black, negro, colored and african american, etc.

    1. Go to the National Archives in D.C. and get a certified true copy of a picture of “John Hanson'(to see what a Moor looks like)…(do not go on the internet, like most of this country’s history, it’s a distaughtion. John Hanson was the President of the Continental United States of America, under the Articles of Confederation (1781). John Hanson is the president that promoted George Washington to General in the U.S. Arm forces.While you are there, get some news paper clippings of the Moor’s treaty of 1787 that made way for the Constitution of 1789, which created this Republic.While you are there,get some news paper clipping of the Moor’s treaty of 1787 and an actual copy of the signed treaty.
    Your knowledge of U.S. History will be all but wiped out… you would not believe the lies that you have been led to believe and actually written about.It goes Further.

    Then get a copy of Henry Black’s law Dict. 4th Edition See the definition of “Free White People” which states ….Free White People does “not” include caucasians, as define in “The United States Immigration And Nationality Act of 1861 as Amended in 1870.As you can see for yourself, “Free
    White People” does not have anything to do with “Color” (black, negro,white or colored people nor any of the corporate slave titles such as afro-american,caucasians, even if you include WASP,etc., it deals strickly with Nationality.Nationality is the only key to proper lawful status that grants you guaranteed sovereign rights.

    As to Dred Scott,he was a Moor who wasn’t aware (like most people of so-called european decendants, that do not know of their lawful status of their Nationality in regards to their proper sovereignty) of his National, he did not present his Nationality,of cause he considered himself a freed slave by traveling to a free state(I smell jurisdiction).Did you also read the part of that case where the Supreme Court said People of African decent can “NEVER” be citizens of the United States. This is a beautiful statement, meaning, going back to their (people of so-called africa decent) Nationality the Courts has no jurisciction, as they would have over their own citizens to prosecute and incarcerate and to grant corporate priviledges in the form of rights..If Dred Scott knew of his Nationality and treaties with the U.S., the only part of the constitution that would have applied would have been Article VI, as used then and to this very day by the Moors.

    By the Way,history is starting to repeat itself, the very same Constitution that created the U.S.The U.S. are going else where and creating a constitution for it’s corporation … The United State of America is leaving. With that, it’s dismantling and taking all of it’s corporations, manufacturing and textile plants,factories. All are leaving and will not be coming back. ….And…. the treaty with Hawaii is over also, now those people at this very moment are rebuilding their sovereign nation.Check it out….and take note of what’s happening to this U.S. corporation.

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

Leave a Reply