What a great idea!!!

[Preacherman]

From Mullings (http://mullings.com/):

Furriners

Friday June 24, 2005

# US Rep. Candice Miller (R-MI) represents the eastern half of the "thumb" of Michigan. And she has come up with a great idea: Changing the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution so that only citizens of the United States who can actually vote are counted for the purposes of Congressional apportionment.

# The 14th Amendment is generally known as the "equal protection" Amendment as Section 1 states in part, "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States … nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

# But Rep. Miller's Amendment attaches to Section 2 which reads:

Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed.

# The effect of this language is that every ten years the Bureau of the Census counts everyone in residing in the United States - legally or illegally. The Census bureau then dutifully reports on how many "persons" are living here and where they are living.

# They then decide, based upon this number how the 435 Members of Congress get split up among the 50 states, apportioning them among the states.

# The problem arises because illegal aliens are "persons" for counting and apportionment purposes but, because they are in the US illegally, often find it inconvenient to cast votes in Federal elections.

# Ms. Miller's resolution would change Amendment 14, Section 2 to read:

Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by counting the number of persons in each State who are citizens of the United States.

# That is a 33-word resolution.

# The resolution to accomplish that (H.J.Res. 53) is titled:

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to provide that Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the number of persons in each State who are citizens of the United States.

# Which is 41 words.

# In my long history here in Your Nation's Capital, that may be the first time I've seen a title which is longer than the language of the bill.

# As of last this writing there are 23 co-sponsors of the resolution - none from California. Why? If apportionment is based upon citizens rather than persons then California would lose six seats. Texas, Florida and New York would lose one each.

# Those nine Members of Congress would be re-distributed among the remaining states.

# Here's why this is important. According to the CNN website recounting the results of the 2004 elections, there were 331,868 votes cast in the election in Michigan's 10th District (which is the eastern half of the Michigan "thumb").

# Democrat Xavier Becerra won re-election in California's 31st District with only 110,411 votes. Why? Because there are so many illegal aliens in that portion of LA County who cannot vote.

# What that means is, the citizens in California 31 have, effectively, three times the voting power as the citizens in Michigan 10.

# This does not appear to meet the "one person- [neé one man] one-vote rule.

# Constitutional Amendments - in this mode - need two-thirds votes in each House of Congress plus the approval of 38 state legislatures which is why Amendments are so relatively rare.

# This, however, is an idea with such clarity and power that it needs to be taken seriously and acted upon quickly.

 

[beerslurpy]

I likey. I dont see why the other states wouldnt all rush for this. Easy 2/3rds in each house.

Unless the Democrats see it as a ploy to reduce the electoral votes of CA and NY and decide to oppose it as a group.

 

[thorn726]

yeah overall it isnt too bad except-
"electoral votes of CA and NY"

there is a seperate problem there, which really this is all a garbage way of handling it.
CA pays out more fed tax than it gets in, partly from having so many people including illegals, pushing up revenue.

so this lopsided representation kinda works out when you add up the numbers, but that isnt the correct way to deal with it.

it really doenst make sense to have representatives for non citizens

 

[dolanp]

Dems count on the illegal support and even the illegal vote so they'll be sure to oppose anything like this.

 

[Standing Wolf]

Dems count on the illegal support and even the illegal vote so they'll be sure to oppose anything like this.

Yep. If it's good for America, you can count on the representatives of the Democratic (sic) party to oppose it.

 

[Sam]

One of the brightest ideas I have heard out of the Congress in quite a while.

Sam

 

[Refirignis]

Hate to hijack your thread, but mentioning the 14th Amendment gets me extremely angry.

I have a better idea: ditch the entire 14th Amendment. It was:

1. The most illegal amendment in US history, as it was very illegally ratified.
2. Turned all State Citizens into subjects of Congress, which flipped around the entire power structure.
3. Provided the base used to destroy our Constitutional Republic (which was done in 1933).
4. Forces everyone into the trust it creates, the moment they are born.
5. Changed the nation into one that follows Roman Civil Law (look it up), not Common Law (the Constitution).

That "amendment" is an absolute atrocity that needs to be annihilated immediately.

First, it made each individual primarily a federal citizen of the municipal corporation of the District of Columbia.

Second, it combined the Senate and the House in their function so they are now operating for the benefit of private commercial law. Until the 14th Amendment, the House functioned for private commercial benefit and the Senate functioned for non-commercial public municipal law benefit - the benefit of the individual under republican law.

Third, it made each person responsible for the public debt by making them beneficiaries of the "public trust" the 14th Amendment established.

The reason people do lose their property is because they are 14th Amendment citizens. As 14th Amendment citizens, you have only an equitable interest in the property. Technically speaking, you have legal and equitable interest, but you cannot execute upon the legal interest. This is because, as 14th Amendment citizens, you have no access to the Law side of the court. With equitable interest, you cannot prove superior title to access the land as a citizen of the soil, which is the proper name for a non- 14th Amendment citizen. You must remember that it is your standing in the law that determines whether you have access to the Law to save your land. It is not determined by the title to the land as all land titles in the United States of America are allodial. Thus, land titles deal with land. Jurisdiction of the 14th Amendment deals only with the person in relation to his interest in the land. A commercial system cannot create credit against the substance of the common law - land. They can only create it through the person under the 14th Amendment.

Sound familiar?

The 14th Amendment is private unilateral contract law being used in the public sector to dictate public policy. Everyone born since 1868 has, by accident of birth, become subject to the 14th Amendment. "Subject to" is accomplished through the constructive trust created under the Roman civil law offer and acceptance principles and all its ramifications, including being citizens primarily of the United States government and not of the state in which you live. Plus, you also have the additional benefit of being part of and responsible for the public debt of the trust. The 14th Amendment does not say that all persons are subject to, it says "and subject to" which is the first clue to revealing that each citizen does have a choice as to whether or not they want to be "subject to."

It's not even legitimate, but the courts don't listen because they know what the implications of nullifying/voiding it would mean: return to Common Law, which means that everyone is innocent until proven guilty and has all fullblown rights as stated via the Bill of Rights, which they don't like.


The only plus side to it is that anyone, including those here at this forum, can voluntarily relinquish their 14th Amendment citizenship, but the result means living outside of the slavery system built to accomodate only 14th Amendment citizens.

14th Amendment Info 1.
14th Amendment Info 2.
14th Amendment Info 3. (PDF)

 

[Joejojoba111]

Incidentally in the Economist magazine they purport that in places such as Florida, the Latino vote is Republican. But I would expect that, yes, the Dems would want to increase their stake in the fastest growing demographic, too.

 

[Ky Larry]

This woman is dangerous and should be silenced immediately. She is guilty of using reason, logic, and common sense inside the beltway. This could set off a string of actions by government that actually make sense. Think of the children!

 

[beerslurpy]

Skyalmian, you sound like Badnarik back when he was a tinfoil hatter.

Dont confuse the 14th amendment with the change in attitudes during the early 20th that made such land-grabbing acceptable.

 

[Refirignis]

Skyalmian, you sound like Badnarik back when he was a tinfoil hatter.

I prefer "awake" and "alert", not the oh-so-trite label that people love to liberally throw around. Funny that you mention Badnarik, though, since it was watching his 2003 Constitution Class videos when I first heard that the 14th Amendment was not properly ratified. He didn't dive into it any further, so I went on my own little quest about it.

Dont confuse the 14th amendment with the change in attitudes during the early 20th that made such land-grabbing acceptable.

I'm well aware that Socialism was insanely popular back then, and that even without the 14th Amendment they still would have found a way to take all of the titles/deeds to things we buy before we finish buying them.

It's not just land grabbing that the 14th affects. It virtually affected everything after the legitimate money system we had was nixed with the Federal Reserve's illegal one. Why do you think you need a permit/license just to have a firearm? You're subject to their jurisdiction and have a contract with them you never even knew existed, so of course they can bind you to their laws, be them illegal or not. We only have the rights they felt was okay to let us have, and require us to "reserve" all of our rights beforehand (or else we don't have any).

 

[2nd Amendment]

There's a couple important things to remember about what Skyalmian is saying:

He is entirely factually correct and tinfoil doesn't enter into it.

It matters no one whit in the real world.

 

[beerslurpy]

But shouldnt political activism deal with what matters in the real world rather than what should be? I have no argument with him that things should be the way he claims, but arguing to directly move there from here will just not happen. Nor will it accomplish anything meaningful except get us further away from making any progress.

There is boiling the frog and then there is hitting it with a blowtorch. You either introduce change into society slowly or you spend decades recovering from the backlash. Ask the gun grabbers if you dont beleive me.

Honestly this ruling was the best thing we could have hoped for. It takes society's already existing views of property rights (which are actually not far removed from our own) and then pushes them off the deep end. It is the first step in getting people motivated to force change. When was the last time you heard property rights being a voting issue?

 

[GRB]

The sad thing is that if the law is changed to read "citizens" then some nitwit in government will insist on making everyone within our borders a citizen.

 

[beerslurpy]

The only way you will get rid of the 14th amendment is if you can show where the constitution and the feds enumerate a right not found in the state constitutions and then create a political crisis over it.

Abortion is such an issue, but many pro-lifers approach it from the standpoint of the 14th amendment being legitimate.

Gun control is another such issue. Many states have restrictive gun control laws that could only be permitted if the 14th amendment didnt exist.

Have you noticed that the supreme court almost never addresses issues which would drive a wedge between the state and the feds on 14th amendment grounds? Are they saving it for a special occasision? Are they trying to sweep it under the rug because it conflicts with federalism? Or are they merely trying to cement it into place without causing an uprising?

Hint: the latter.