How SCOTUS perverted the “equal protection” clause of Sec. 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment

1. Harvard Professor Raoul Berger’s meticulously documented book, Government by Judiciary: The Transformation of the Fourteenth Amendment, proves by means of thousands of quotes from the Congressional Debates, that the purpose of Sec. 1 of the 14th Amendment was to extend citizenship to freed slaves and to protect them from southern Black Codes which denied them basic God given Rights.

2. The “equal protection” clause within Sec. 1 of the 14th Amendment says:

No State shall “…deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

In Ch.10 of his book, [go to page 222 of this pdf Ed] , Prof. Berger shows the true meaning of the “equal protection” clause: The “equal protection” was limited to the rights enumerated in the Civil Rights Act of 1866. Section 1 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 says:

“Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America …
That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States; and such citizens, of every race and color, without regard to any previous condition of slavery or involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall have the same right, in every State and Territory in the United States, to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, and give evidence, to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property, and to full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of person and property, as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, and penalties, and to none other, any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, to the contrary notwithstanding.”

This 1866 Act thus secured to blacks the same right to contract, to hold property, and to sue, as whites enjoyed, and the equal benefit of all laws for security of person and property. “Political rights” were excluded [Remember, the 14th Amendment did not give freed slaves the right to vote]. But respecting the rights listed in the Act, States were now required to treat blacks the same as whites. THAT is what the “equal protection” clause in the 14th Amendment means.

3. So, the “equal protection” clause is not a carte blanche invitation for federal judges to thereafter prohibit States from making any “distinctions” or “classifications” on any subject whatsoever in any of their State Laws or State Constitutions which five (5) judges on the US Supreme Court don’t agree with!

But that is what federal judges have been doing. And they have decided that, respecting marriage, “classifications” and “distinctions” based on male and female genders are unconstitutional as in violation of the equal protection clause.

What unadulterated RUBBISH emanates from the fetid recesses of the minds of the federal judges in this Country.

Will these judges next say that State Statutes which prohibit close relatives from marrying make “distinctions” and “classifications” which violate the equal protection clause?

4. To my fellow Citizens, I say: For Heaven’s Sake, People! Use your heads! God gave you a brain – use it!

5. To my fellow lawyers, I say: Watch The Matrix, Part I. Pay close attention to the passage where Morpheus is offering the blue pill and the red pill to Neo. Morpheus later says, “I am trying to free your mind, but I can only show you the door. You are the one who has to walk through.” Note the descriptions of the Matrix thereafter and of the people who are still plugged in. What you have been told, beginning with your first year in law school, is a lie. Lawyers who accept the lies are plugged in to the Matrix. The red pill signifies opening your eyes. I offer you the red pill. Open your eyes.

Written by Publius Huldah and published by Publius Huldah ~ September 12, 2015.

FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U. S. C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

2 thoughts on “How SCOTUS perverted the “equal protection” clause of Sec. 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment

  1. Fergus

    The important point is “under the jurisdiction.” No one not born in the USA is under the “jurisdiction” of the USG, that’s why tourists do not enjoy the same constitutional rights as Americans. Diplomats by the same standrad are not under the jurisdiction of the USG and their children, even if born here are not citizens.

    The author of the 14th lambasted the idea of birthright citizenship. Note that Indians, Chinese and Japanese did not receive citizenship even if born in the USA till the 20th century.

    Reply
  2. Mike

    “No one not born in the USA is under the jurisdiction.” So, according to you, tourists can speed, sell drugs, etc, and they are not under the jurisdiction of the state. Cannot be arrested!

    I don’t think so.

    Tourists DO have the same responsibility to obey the law–they’re within the jurisdication–and they have the same rights. For instance if you arrest a tourist, you must read him Miranda. Diplomats have the same rights, and are further governed by treaties.

    Does the law mean what we think the Congress thought they meant? Does the law mean what we think the Congress should have said? No. That line of thinking leads into deep speculation. In some cases, courts look at intent where intent is unclear. When the words are straightforward, so is the interpretation.

    There is a long-established principle of law that says “the law says what it says.” The assumption is that if Congress wanted the law to say something, then they would have written it to say that.

    If Congress wanted to limit “equal protection” to blacks only, they would have said “Blacks will…” But they did not. They wrote, after much consideration, “ALL PERSONS…WITHIN THE JURISDICTION…”

    They did not say all “citizens” or all “freedmen.” The CRA of 1866 is one law. The Constitution is another, overarching law. In fact, to say that only citizens had rights would run counter to what our Founding Fathers envisioned. Remember, “all” are created equal, and this law applies to everyone who is physically present at the moment wherever American law prevails: our jurisdiction.

    In short, if our government can legally tell you what to do, arrest you, tax you, whatever, then you are within the jurisdiction. Thus, you have the protections of the Constitution. Doesn’t matter if you are gay, a criminal, illegal, a Russian spy, whatever–if you’re here, you have the same rights subject to due process.

    And this is why illegals are allowed to go to school here. It is unconstitutional to exclude a person or a group unless the government has an overriding prevailing interest–like a war. Mistakes made regarding Chinese and Japanese were corrected because excluding them was a mistake.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *