Monday, August 30, 2010

How they get by with it?

I really need to collect my thoughts on this issue, but I think I can manage to get the point across.

As I've written time and time again, the federal government uses (or, misuses) the citizenship and equal protection provisions of the first section of the fourteenth amendment to establish an absolute federal tyranny over these States. We see the results of this work of their hands in Judge Susan Bolton's recent ruling per Arizona's immigration law; in the Tenth Circuit's rulings concerning Oklahoma's immigration law, in the removal of Ten Commandments monument in Stigler Ok.; in the Supreme Court's ruling in Kelo vs. New London a few years ago, and we could go on and on and on. But how do they get away with it?

Well, the simple answer is that we let them get away with it. The longer version involves something that many people are not aware of. It is called the federal "enrollment at birth program" sponsored by the Social Security Administration.

The fourteenth Amendment states that 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. Notice that there are two conditions to establishing U.S. citizenship -- born or naturalized AND subject to U.S. jurisdiction.

The Senate debates in the 39th Congress cover these aspects of the amendment pretty thoroughly, and the intent of the framers of the fourteenth amendment comes through loud and clear. But the issue at hand is that through this illegitimate practice of enrolling children into Social Security at birth the federal government meets the second of these two conditions, particularly with respect to children of parents subject to a foreign jurisdiction.

Mothers who have recently given birth inside an American hospital have some understanding of how this works. Hospital nursing staff ask the mother to fill out several forms, one of which contains a question about enrolling your baby in Social Security. Mothers may answer "yes" or "no" to this question, then sign their initials beside their answer. However, standard practice, I've learned both the hard way and through investigation into the matter, is for the nurses to answer "yes" for the mother in the case that she refuses to fill the paperwork out in the hospital, or, if she answers "no," and then to initial the question for her. This really does happen! I've seen it with my own two eyes. My wife refused to fill this paperwork out for one of our children in the hospital, and what I've just described to you happened, not once, not twice, but three separate times. All of which paperwork was ultimately destroyed. Their final approach was to threaten to not release the baby to our custody when my wife was released from the hospital, until she completed the application. To which I asked: "where is the law or statute that gives you this authority?" They answered that "well, it isn't a law, it's hospital policy." Then I asked whether I needed, therefore, to bring the sheriff with me when I came to pick them up? They said that wouldn't be necessary. Thought not.

Anyway, as bad as all of this is (and it is bad!), the point is that through the enrollment at birth program, the federal government subjects newborns to its jurisdiction, and immediately begins to apply the equal protection and due process clauses of the fourteenth amendment to such child. Whether the child's parents are aliens (legal or illegal) subject to a foreign jurisdiction is, at that point, no longer an issue. The child himself is subject to U.S. jurisdiction via enrollment at birth. Hence, all State and local laws affecting him are, thereby, subject to federal review, and/or, revision. Even before they take actual effect. Thus, if the federal government determines that a State law has the mere potential to inconvenience a certain group of persons subject to U.S. jurisdiction, it may strike out those provisions in the law. That's how the feds gutted Oklahoma's law of its most effective provisions. And it is the way it will ultimately gut Arizona's law. Popular monuments will continue to disappear from State and local government properties, religious emblems will continue to be removed from emergency vehicles, private property will be taken more easily "for public use," and on and on and on.

We have a serious constitutional crisis on our hands, folks. And we'd better start coming up with ways to solve it.


Anonymous said...

The time of crisis is past.

You know the old saying, you never really value what you had until it's lost?

If I hadn't already determined by independent assessment that America's Constitutional government is over, I could tell by just how much people are worried about it now.

As for the method for affirming the Constitution, the method was always pretty simple. You vote for people who value and respect the Constitution. The Constitution gives them enormous latitude when it comes to removing those demonstrably hostile to the plain sense of the Constitution from office. Activist judges and progressive legislators are rare and immediately impeached and removed, with disqualification from holding future office added for those who transgress in the service of known enemies of the United States.

Holding office at the Federal level is primarily an exercise in carefully not treading on the Constitution, because voters care more about removing traitors from office than they worry about largess taken from national taxes, particularly the voters of states (or districts) you don't represent.

This system depends on just two things, voters who value the Constitution and an honest ballot. And today, America has neither.

Call Me Mom said...

"Activist judges and progressive legislators are rare and immediately impeached and removed, with disqualification from holding future office added for those who transgress in the service of known enemies of the United States."
If only that were true. Instead we have groups like The Socialist Party of America announcing in their newsletter(Aug 2009)that 70 Congressional democrats currently belong to their caucus.

Terry Morris said...

If we had voters who value the constitution, then we'd have an honest ballot.

I see some good things happening so I'm not left completely with no hope. But it's a tall mountain to climb, no doubt. I personally acquired over 2,000 pocket-sized copies of the constitution several months back and I've been passing them out ever since, to elected leaders and average citizens. I never fail, while doing this, to point them to a provision in the constitution that my conversation with them convinces me has eluded them.

Anonymous said...

Is this a particular provision or just a general rule?

I have to wonder at the assertion that a population who values the Constitution necessarily generates an honest ballot. What ever other functions might be carried out by the people themselves without dependence on government, the integrity of the ballot doesn't seem to be one of them.

Terry Morris said...

Generally people don't understand the way the courts manipulate the citizenship and equal protection provisions of the fourteenth amendment. In particular, people tend to miss the stipulation in Article VI requiring laws be made pursuant to the constitution to establish supremacy. Virtually no one understands the tenth amendment and reserved powers. Virtually no one understands the original intent of the Bill of rights as a whole. And etc...

Anonymous said...

Well, in that sense I can say that I never read the Constitution without finding new relevance in some particular detail or another. It is a great work, and great works tend to have that quality.

cheap louboutin said...

louboutin shoes is one of the most recognized name brands in the world of high fashion. You will find A-list celebrities such as Sarah Jessica Parker, Janet Jackson and Nicole Kidman wearing louboutin sale.