Members' Corner

Ignorance is curable whereas stupidity can be terminal.

If a nation and its people are living on borrowed money then what they are really living on is borrowed energy and borrowed time. They should not even suspect that time could be on their side.

Personally, I had not paid particular attention to the illegal immigration problem until, perhaps two years ago, I happened to be watching when Lou Dobbs dedicated most of his hour program to the illegal immigration problem. Had it not been for the fact that I had already spent thousands of hours over the previous 5 to 6 years doing the best methodical analysis of many of the nation's functional problems that I knew how to do there would have been no way that I would have realized just how neatly and logically the failure to enforce immigration laws fits into the systemic functional big picture that I had been developing of this nation.

The illegal immigration problem is not the stand-alone problem that I think I hear it being depicted as. It is one of a set of several long-term to very long-term deeply embedded systemic national problems that Congress and members of Congress have been talking-the-talk about during election campaigns as if they intended to do something, but when it came to walking-the-walk they take a hike instead and find a way to duck, dodge and crawfish and push the problems off into the future to be dealt with someday by someone else. I personally fear that the "someday" when it was essential to the future of the nation and the nation's people that something be done to resolve those problems may now be a day in history and that as a nation we have passed a point of no return and the unresolved problems are now dictating policy decisions in Washington rather than vice-versa.

Congress, as an institution, was defined and created in the spring and summer of 1787 when Article I of the Constitution was written. That makes Congress just a few months short of being a 220 year old institution. Functionally, Congress is not a long-term, 220 year old institution. At any given time, the Congress that is seated is less than 2 years old and never has as much as two years remaining in its functional life span.

As a result, the Congresses that the nation has actually had have never functioned as the long-term national institution that was defined and created in Article I. All of the Congresses in the nation's history have functioned as a congregation of local and state politicians who were congregated together to create a short-term, temporary institution that would come to an effective end at the time of the next congressional election.

----------...----------

There is only one kind of problem that is, by nature, a political problem. That is the problem that candidates for office have of how to get more votes than their opposition on election day. That's all. All other problems of all kinds are functional problems of some kind. The reason that the problems exist is because something is not functioning as we expect it to, we want it to and as we need for it to.

We, the people, elect 535 reasonably educated, reasonably intelligent people to represent us in the two houses of Congress. Those 535 people then get sworn in and are divided into two partisan political caucuses. The 535 reasonably intelligent people then make up two entities, which then operate much/most of the time with the functional entity IQs of two morons.

We simply must have a Congress that is a long term national institution that is institutionally capable of taking the lead in getting face to face with the nation's very real functional problems and is institutionally capable of continuing on in a leadership role until the best available real and workable solutions to bring about the best available resolutions to those very real problems have been developed and implemented.

A Congress that uses a decision making process that is derived from and then is driven by the short term demands of partisan and structural politics cannot be a Congress that is institutionally capable of making the best available decisions that result in the best available solutions for the nation's functional problems unless by fortuitous accident.

We must have a Congress whose members are capable of looking at our nation and seeing one nation undivided as this nation actually functions. They must be able to see and understand a nation in which each part is connected to and interconnected with the other parts; a nation in which each part is dependent upon and is interdependent with all the others and a nation in which all its parts are dynamically interactive with each other.

A Congress whose members look at our nation and see a nation that is divided, segmented and fragmented as it is depicted by the nation's political map cannot possibly be the Congress that we and our country must have.

We must have a Congress whose members can put the process of governance of the nation for the people from Washington at the top of a list of national priorities and keep it there where it belongs.

A Congress whose members each have the politics of government in Washington at the top of their own separate list of politically motivated personal priorities cannot possibly be the Congress that we and our country need and must have.

If we cannot have that Congress, which I believe is the Congress that I am reading about when I read Article I of The Constitution, then it could very well be that the best thing that we could possibly do is to sit down and write the most glowing epitaph that we are capable of writing for The United States of America that we have known for all of our lives.

The inertia of the status quo is always the first hurdle that has to be cleared before any change can be put in motion. Many times, perhaps most times, the inertia of the status quo is also the highest hurdle that must be cleared in order to make meaningful changes. That is because the constituency of the status quo is almost always the most powerful political constituency. The constituency of the status quo consists of liberals and conservatives; Democrats and Republicans. The constituency of the status quo is present across the entire political spectrum.

We, the people, of The United States of America--all of us--simply must have the will to try to find a way to keep electoral politics out here in the fifty states where elections are conducted; keep electoral politics out of Washington, DC, and keep the distorting, destructive and corrupting influence of partisan electoral politics out of the governmental and public policy decision making process in Congress.

Could it be done? Very, very unlikely. However, I honestly do not believe that choosing to not try is a choice that we can afford to make.

There has been discussion about whether the 14th Amendment intended to provide citizenship to children born in the United States of foreign nationals. Along with the 13th and 15th amendments the 14th was drafted and enacted following the War of Northern Aggression to address ills that arose from the institution of slavery.

Up until that period of unpleasantness everyone was a citizen of a State, not a citizen of the nation. Under the theory and practice of States’ rights the individual owed his allegiance to his respective State and the State had the relationship with national government. One must be very careful in readings of earlier times as to whether United States refers to coming together of the several States to form the Union of states, or the country as a nation state as we now mean.

It is important to know what is meant by term “citizen”. From Black’s Law Dictionary:

Citizen: members of a community inspired to common goal, which, as associated relations, submit themselves to rules of conduct for the promotion of general welfare and conservation of individuals as well as collective rights.

In re McIntosh, D.C.Wash.,12 F.Supp. 177

(“The words ‘citizen’ and ‘citizenship’, however, usually include the idea of domicile, Delaware, L.& W.R. Co. v. Petrowsky, C.C.N.Y. 250 F. 554, 557; ‘citizen inhabitant and resident often synonymous’, Jonesboro Trust Co. v. Nutt, 118 Ark. 368, 176 S.W. 322, 324; and, ‘citizenship and domicile are often synonymous’, Messick v. Southern Pa. Bus Co, D.C.Pa, 59 F.Supp. 799, 800.”)

The 13th Amendment, which abolished slavery and involuntary servitude, was inadequate. The southern states as they were readmitted tended to send the leadership of the former Confederacy to Congress. Laws referred to as Black Codes were meant to provide an end-run of the 13th Amendment and to control freed slaves. Former slaves were not permitted to vote or to purchase or own land. They were barred from many occupations, could not testify in a case involving a white man, required to dress as laborers when in community settings, etc. They weren’t citizens of the State, only a citizen of the nation.

The Civil Rights Act of 1866 was passed declaring blacks to be citizens and was to deny the states the ability to restrict their rights. It was largely ineffective. The 14th Amendment was subsequently passed to correct the inadequacies of the 13th Amendment.

Article XIV, 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.” This was monumental.

The individual was now a citizen of the nation. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof were now citizens of both the Nation and the State. Allegiance is owed to both.

IN Slaughter-House Cases 16 Wall. 36, 83 US 36 (1872) is the first major case arising from the 14th Amendment. The case issue was not involving former slaves, African-Americans, and citizenship issues for individuals, or children born in this country.

The Slaughter-House Cases involved competing businesses. The contention was that the 14th Amendment had created a “new” citizenship level that the relationship with the State had been replaced, and that now the national government was the source of all rights formerly enjoyed by the States. The Court held “nice try” while ruling the 14th Amendment was primarily intended to provide State citizenship for the benefit of the African-Americans. The Court has also held that same right of citizenship was conferred on all other races that were naturalized or born in the United States. It did not extend full citizenship to women and Indians. However there are specific exceptions with regard to the phrase “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof”. For example a child born to a foreign minister or diplomat would not be a citizen. Neither would a child born to enemy aliens during time of war.

This is not a new concept. It is an ancient rule of citizenship that is recognized around the world. In the western world the practice goes back to at least early Rome.

An alien is a foreigner, one born outside the US for our purposes. An alien is a person who owes allegiance to a foreign government. An alien is “subject to the jurisdiction” of the country of residence and owes allegiance to that country. For an alien residing in the United States it is the United States that is the “foreign power” to whom allegiance is owed. Therefore, his children become citizens by birth.

In the late 1800s Congressional action barred Chinese from naturalized citizenship. A Chinese couple that were permanently residing in this country and conducting a business was considered subjects of the Emperor of China. The Supreme Court ruled that while the parents could be refused citizenship; children who were born in the United States and “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” would be US citizens. (United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) 169 US 649) Several subsequent cases have affirmed.

The question was posed as to whether IN Slaughter-House Cases had been overturned. Apparently not since blacks are still entitled to full citizenship rights. Are all children who are born in the United States citizens, except those noted? In the United States we have a long and proud custom of following historical tradition, law, and legal precedent.

This writing heavily sourced U.S. Constitution, Black’s Law Dictionary, “The CONSTITUTION of the UNITED STATES: Its Sources and Its Application” by Thomas James Norton, and “Don’t’ Know Much About History?” by Kenneth C. Davis

The 14th Amendment was not enacted to apply to general citizenship but to correct errors resulting from the incomplete enactment of the 13th Amendment. The Slaughter-House case was not a case that involved individual citizenship of children born in this country. It is not the "controlling authority". It is not applicable and thus irrelevant and immaterial whether it was over turned or not.

In response to Kent Gildersleeve:
From Richard Gruetter, constitution177(at)bellsouth.net

Lets begin with the basics. Our U.S. Constitution belongs to the citizens of the Unites States and is the most fundamental and controlling law of our federal government. It controls the states only in those areas where the states have specifically given up control as specified in the Constitution.

Any changes to our most foundational law, our Constitution, must come back to the states where the people, through their legislatures, are able to affirm or deny these changes made through the amendment process.

What ever the original intent of our Congress was, when amending the Constitution, has to be the controlling intent and authority of any amendments to our Constitution. It is this original intent that the citizens must sign off on through their state legislators as they approve or reject the proposed amendment. “We the People” are the ultimate earthly sovereigns in the United States.

The Federalist Papers (and later along with Madison’s notes from the Constitutional Convention) form the most definitive intent of our Constitution as these papers served as the intent the citizens and their legislatures were signing off on. Later, the stated intent found in the Congressional Records should serve as a guide to the legal boundaries of subsequent Constitutional Amendments and the laws finding their authority in the same.

Fed33, p. 128, Hamilton

Laws Judged Against Constitution

6 But it may be again asked, who judges whether laws passed for executing the powers of the Union are necessary and proper?

I answer, first, that this question would be asked about the powers themselves even without the declaratory, clause. In the second place, the national government, like every other government, must judge the proper exercise of its powers, as must its constituents.

If the federal government should overreach the just bounds of its authority, making tyrannical use of its powers, the people, who created it, must appeal to the standard they have formed and correct the injury done to the Constitution as needs may suggest and prudence justify. The constitutional propriety of a law must always be determined by the nature of the powers upon which it is founded.
(Emphasis added)

The first Sentence of our Constitution, Article I, Section 1, places ALL Legislative authority in the Congress of the United States.
(Link)

When federal judges change the original intent of our Constitution, and the Amendments to it they are legislating and therefore VIOLATING the very first sentence of OUR Constitution. They are also violating the will of the people at the time the Constitution and/or the amendments were passed.

It was the opinion of the father of American Jurisprudence, Justice Story that:

"The offences to which the power of impeachment has been and is ordinarily applied as a remedy are ... what are aptly termed political offences, growing out of personal misconduct, or gross neglect, or usurpation, or habitual disregard of the public interests.”

He also said:
"...unconstitutional opinions" and "attempts to subvert the fundamental laws and introduce arbitrary power," were also grounds for impeachment.

In Federalist 65, p 266, Hamilton said:

Several State constitutions follow the example. Those States and Great Britain seem to regard the practice of impeachments as a bridle in the hands of the legislative body on the executive servants of the government. Isn't this the true light in which it ought to be regarded? (Emphasis added)

In Federalist 78, p. 319, Hamilton said:

Judges Can Be Impeached

“To assure judges will act responsibly, they are liable to be impeached by the House of Representatives and tried by the Senate. If convicted, a judge may be dismissed from office and disqualified for holding any other.”

Federalist 78 Hamilton said, pg. 313,314

[Judges would be the] Least Threat to Constitutional Rights

7 Anyone who studies the different departments of governmental power must see that, when they are constitutionally separated from each other, the judiciary, from the nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution because it will have the least capacity to annoy and injure them.

The executive not only dispenses honors but holds the community's sword.

The legislature not only commands the purse but prescribes the rules by which the duties and rights of every citizen are to be regulated.

The judiciary, however, has no influence over either the sword or the purse. It directs neither the strength nor wealth of society. It can take no active resolution whatever.

The judiciary may be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, merely judgment. It even depends on the aid of the executive arm for the efficacy of its judgments. (Emphasis added)

Against the above backdrop we come back to the 13th and 14th Amendments.

The 13th Amendment was intended to abolish slavery, as Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation did not have the Constitutional authority to do so.

“...[T]he Emancipation Proclamation did not end slavery in the nation. Lincoln recognized that the Emancipation Proclamation would have to be followed by a constitutional amendment in order to guarantee the abolishment of slavery.” (See this link for the above reference.)

It was widely believed that state constitutions would be changed to include former slaves as citizens as the federal government at the time had no authority over the basis of citizenship. Therefore, citizenship was not the purpose of the 13th Amendment. This lack of authority over citizenship by the federal government is why the Supreme Court overturned the Dred Scott decision.

In March of 1857, Scott lost the decision as seven out of nine Justices on the Supreme Court declared no slave or descendant of a slave could be a U.S. citizen, or ever had been a U.S. citizen.(See this link for the above reference.)

The above statement by Kent Gildersleeve that: “The 14th Amendment was not enacted to apply to general citizenship...,” is simply false. The Federal government had to pass the 14th Amendment in order to have any Constitutional authority to get involved in a person’s citizenship. The 14th Amendment was also the first time national citizenship was established and state citizenship flowed out of and was dependant on federal citizenship.

Given this shift in authority over citizenship from the states to the federal government it is extremely important to understand this newly established intent.

The citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment states:

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. See Here

The stated intent of the Citizenship Clause of the Amendment can be clearly be seen from the Congressional Record:

" Senator Lyman Trumbull, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, supported Howard, contending that “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” meant “not owing allegiance to anybody else... subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States.”

By itself, birth within the territorial limits or the United States, as the case of the Indians indicated, did not make one automatically “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. And “jurisdiction” did not mean simply subject to the laws of the United States or subject to the jurisdiction of its courts. Rather, “jurisdiction” meant exclusive "allegiance" to the United States. Not all who were subject to the laws owed allegiance to the United States. As Senator Howard remarked, the requirement of “jurisdiction,” understood in the sense of "allegiance, "will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States.” (Emphasis added)

(The above comes from The Heritage Guide To the Constitution, ISBN 1-59698-001-X, Edwin Meese III Chmn. of the editorial board, with over 100 Professors of law from Universities like Harvard, Notre Dame, etc., contributing; p.384-385) This is a different source than that which I referred to in previous writings on the same subject.

It should be more than abundantly clear for anyone seeking the TRUTH that it was never the intent of the 14th Amendment to allow persons born in the United States who’s parents were foreigners or aliens to automatically become citizens PERIOD! Especially those who are here illegally!!!

Regarding Kent Gildersleeve’s statement:

“The Slaughter-House case was not a case that involved individual citizenship of children born in this country. It is not the "controlling authority". It is not applicable and thus irrelevant and immaterial whether it was over turned or not.

The Slaughter-House case is not irrelevant! It simply shows that the common understanding of intent of the 14th Amendment was to bring the rights and privileges of the former slaves up equal to the rest of the citizens – not to give the federal government broad new powers over the states.

IN SLAUGHTER-HOUSE CASES, 83 U.S. 36 (1872)

The Court ruled:

“… to establish a clear and comprehensive definition of citizenship which should declare what should constitute citizenship of the United States, and also citizenship of a State, the first clause of the first section [of the 14th Amendment] was framed.”

“… and it overturns the Dred Scott decision by making all persons born within the United States and subject to its jurisdiction citizens of the United States. That its main purpose was to establish the citizenship of the negro can admit of no doubt. The phrase, 'subject to its jurisdiction' was intended to exclude from its operation children of … citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.” (Emphasis added)

In the same case the U. S. Supreme Court clarified the purpose and limits of the 14th Amendment’s Section 1, when they said:

“Nor shall any State deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

“... it is not difficult to give a meaning to this clause. The existence of laws in the States where the newly emancipated negroes resided, which discriminated with gross injustice and hardship against them as a class, was the evil to be remedied by this clause, and by it such laws are forbidden.

“If, however, the States did not conform their laws to its requirements, then by the fifth section of the article of amendment Congress was authorized to enforce it by suitable legislation. We doubt very much whether any action of a State not directed by way of discrimination against the negroes as a class, or on account of their race, will ever be held to come within the purview of this provision. It is so clearly a provision for that race and that emergency, that a strong case would be necessary for its application to any other.” (Emphasis added)

When you look at the ORIGINAL intent of the 14th Amendment and then look back and see how the 14th Amendment has been twisted and molded into other uses by the Court, it is time to start limiting the Courts to their original purpose and authority of discovering the law and its original intent and then applying the law in that light, not applying the new meaning and intent of the Judge.

This original intent was overturned in 1898 in United States v Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898). This case allowed the children born of those here legally to automatically be citizens, contrary to the original intent, understood by We the People, as presented by the authors of the 13th and 14th Amendments. The court in Ark ignored the above evidence of intent and would offer an interesting study concerning courts that change original intent rather than discovering and applying the law.

Respectfully submitted by,

Richard Gruetter

Constitution177(at)bellsouth.net