The 14the Amendment Citizen

An erronous argument dispelled...

| From the "Reasonable Action" Newsletter |
|                                         |
| S.A.P. Fellowship                       |
| P.O. Box 91                             |
| Westminster, MD 21158                   |
|                                         |
| 410-857-4441 (Voice)                    |
| 410-857-5249 (Fax)                      |
| (E-mail)        |

By Edward Ellison Jr. J.D.


===================== Amendment 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. No State shall make or enforce any law which
    shall abridge the privileges or  immunities of citizens of
    the United States; nor shall any State deprive  any person
    of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
    nor deny to any person within it's jurisdiction the equal
    protection of the laws.

No one is perfect; And of course because of this, anyone can
err.  The Court is no exception. However, just as the  court
can  err in its decisions so can the average individual  who
is  even more likely to misinterpret information, not having
the background or education to sufficiently analyze what  he
has learned.

Today,  patriots have a tendancy to embrace  even  the  most
outlandish  theories  in an attempt  to  explain  the  legal
machinery  of  the  New World Order.  The  reason  for  this
tendancy is not unlike the person who refuses to acknowledge
the  death of a loved one. The reality is difficult to bear.
With this denial, comes the list of excuses which allow  for
the belief that the government is still obeying the law, but
that  the Constitution has been  somehow altered or made  of
no  effect due to this or that voluntary association or act.
The  result  being,  that  some lessor  form  of  government
exists, nested within the original form of government  (i.e.
our  Constitutional Republic). We are forced to address such
theories  because  they do great harm to  the  education  of
everyone involved and to the movement as a whole.

So  it is with the argument put forth which contends that we
are  "14th amendment citizens." Perhaps you've heard of  it.
In  essence,  the  premise stems from the  belief  that  our
present  condition (which is not unlike that of  slaves)  is
the  result  of  the 14th amendment which has  made  us  (by
conspiratorial  design?)  to  be  "subjects"   rather   than
citizens. The argument has little or no merit, and  whatever
relevance  it may have, depends on half truths and distorted
logic. The 14th Amendment is reproduced here. (SCAN 14A)


It  came about simply because some people do not know how to
apply the grammatical and/or definitive rules of the English
language,  and  are  unwilling, whatever their  motives,  to
ascribe  the proper definitions pertinent to the text.  More
often   as   not,   the  individuals  who  perpetuate   this
(mis)understanding  have usually heard someone  else  repeat
the  same  story  (which the originator  himself  only  half
understood)  and  then,  believing it  to  be  correct  (and
without  bothering  to check it out)  passed  it  on  in  an
attempt  to  explain  our current national  condition.  Such
misguided enthusiasm stems from an honest desire to  educate
others  to  the   facts surrounding the  steadily  declining
economy, debauching of currency, and other factors that  are
emerging as a result of an evolution towards an oligarchical
legal  system,  the  technically  incorrect  nature  of  the
subject matter not withstanding.

The  usual misinformation is supported by talking about  the
Crown, or monarchy of our progenitors, with reference to the
people  who were "subjects" of the Crown. Chief among  these
"subjects"  were  the serfs who lived only  to  serve  their
master.  Thinking  only  of this category,  the  misinformed
patriot will use the word "subjects" to describe only  those
people  who  are on the short end of the stick. They  forget
however,  that under a Monarchy even the Dukes, the  Princes
and  Princesses,  Barons and Duchesses, Earls,  Archbishops,
Sheriffs  etc,  were all "subjects" of the  Crown  as  well.
This   aspect  (the  nobility  being  subjects)   is   never
considered  by  those  who insist on perpetuating  the  myth
regarding the 14th amendment. Well meaning though  they  may
be,  (to  educate  others to the present dilemma)  in  their
minds, "subjects" are "slaves."
Their  misunderstanding is further compounded  by  the  fact
that  the  14th amendment actually uses the word  "subject."
Under  the  distorted magnifying glass of  the  misinformed,
this  evolves into the belief that the Constitution  is  not
working  and  that what's left of our actual citizenship  in
"the  several  states of the union," is for  example,  found
only in the Preamble..."We the People." In other words,  due
to  the  14th  amendment we are all now  "subjects"  of  the

This faulty logic results in the conclusion that failure  to
positively  assert  ones  position using  the  proper  legal
dictum  (jurisdictional mumbo jumbo) will leave an otherwise
free  citizen  of  our Constitutional Republic,  (under  the
Preamble)  to  live with the less than desirable  status  of
"14th  Amendment citizen," or even worse, that there  is  no
way out of the jurisdictional quagmire at all. When a person
believes  that there is "no hope" he will sit  back  and  do
nothing.  Sometimes we wonder whether such  theories  aren't
intentionally spread?

In  any  case,  those who labor under this false  impression
talk  about the "power" of the Preamble as though it were  a
grant  of  power. This too is a fallacy, and dependent  upon
endless suppositions that have no real basis in fact.


To  analyze the validity of such arguments we will start  by
examining  the Preamble and the phrase "We the  People."  To
support such an argument one would first have to assume that
the  document  was  indeed a grant of  power.  However,  the
Preamble does not grant any power whatsoever.  It is  merely
a  statement  of  purpose for the "grants"  of  power  which
follow in Articles 1,2,3,4,5,6 and 7. Therefore, it is not a
grant power to anyone or anything.

PREAMBLE:    a clause at the beginning of a constitution  or
statute explanatory of the reasons for its enactment and the
objects  sought to be accomplished. (Black's Law Doctionary,
3rd Ed.,  St. Paul, Minn.1933)

The  singular phrase "We the People," (which is not, in  and
of   itself,  a  sentence)  is  often  misconstrued   and/or
misidentified  as  some mystical grant  of  power  to  which
everyone must cow tow, bow down, and/or genuflect.

Does  the  non-sentence "We the People" have any meaning  at
all  without  completing the sentence? Of course  not!  Yet,
there  are  those who repeatedly revere those words  in  the
extreme.  Sometimes this extreme borders on  false  worship.
Perhaps  you may recall an old "Star Trek" episode in  which
the  remnant  of a fallen society was left to worship  those
very  words without ever understanding their meaning.  Quite
appropriate  in  light  of  the  reverence  that  those  who
perpetuate   a  "subject  of"  government  (14th   amendment
citizen) argument.

The phrase "We the People" is not even a sentence. For it to
carry any meaning the question must be asked; "We the People
who what?" By way of demonstration consider the following:

1) We the People who bark at the moon?
2) We the People who rob banks?
3) We the People who put savings in banks?
4)  We  the  People  who swim on the  banks  of  the  mighty
5) We the People who march at Pro Life rallys?

"We  the  People" is meaningless unless the  phrase  expands
into a sentence. In the case of the Preamble, even if we add
the  next four words it still won't have any meaning. We the
People  (of  the United States...) is still not  a  complete
sentence! What does it mean?
"We  the People of the United States in order to form a more
perfect    union,   establish   justice,   ensure   domestic
tranquility, provide for the common defense, (SCAN PREAMBLE)
promote  the  general welfare, and secure the  blessings  of
liberty  to  ourselves  and  our posterity,  do  ordain  and
establish this Constitution of the United States of America.

The  all important question is; Even as a complete sentence,
does  it  mean anything for the people of the United States?
Actually, that was a trick question too. The answer is still
an  emphatic  "NO" because while a sentence may  carry  some
ethereal  or  philosophical meaning to any given individual,
it does not, and cannot, carry any uniform meaning to a body
of people unless it has legal effect.

Even  though  we now have a complete sentence, the  Preamble
(speaking  for  the  people en masse)  is  still  irrelevant
because those who signed  the Constitution (up to Article 7)
and affixed there names thereto, had no power to make it the
law  of the land. It is a mere introduction or statement  of
purpose  for  the  Constitution which follows.  Furthermore,
under  those circumstances, if it was not a grant  of  power
after  the  Constitution was made the law of  the  land,  it
certainly  was not a grant of power before the  Constitution
had  any  legal  effect at all. Sorry to throw  you  such  a
curve, but it just goes to show how easy it is to be carried
away  by  a concept or an understanding, and then be tripped
up by small (enormous as the case may be) details.

The Constitution did not become the law of the land until it
was  ratified.  To  be  precise, the  "ratification  of  the
conventions  of  9  States  shall  be  sufficient  for   the
establishment  of this Constitution between  the  States  so
ratifying the same.

So...until the ratification by the States, the Preamble  was
a  mere  excercise  in verbosity. For all  the  huffing  and
puffing  that went on it means nothing more than a statement
of purpose for that which follows it.

It's  like  the auctioneer who stretches the truth  to  sell
goods  at  auction.  His  words are  meant  to  capture  the
imagination  of those who desire to benefit from  what  they
purchase!  Furthermore,  the  auctioneer  cannot   be   held
responsible for his embellishments because he is working for
the  sellor and not the buyer. The legal concept  is  "buyer
beware,"  the  principal of Caveat Emptor.  His  words  mean

The Preamble simply has no legal effect.

 Does it "grant" any power?   Not hardly!

Can the Preamble "grant " any power?  To anyone?  To any  of
the three branches of government?

Absolutely not!


To  believe that the 14th amendment makes you a citizen, you
would need to believe that citizenship did not exist at  all
prior  to  the 14th amendment. In other words, it  would  be
necessary to assume that we simultaneously became "citizens"
of  the  United  States of America, and  "subjects"  of  its
government when the amendment was passed.

While  these  concepts may be exciting and stimulating  they
are  nevertheless  misperceptions that  are  based  on  half
truths. Acceptence of such conceptual theories is a lazy way
out. Once they are believed, you no longer have to study  or
read anything. All you need do, is accept the buffoonery and
bluffery that has occurred in presenting the argument. Those
who  blindly  grab at such logic are like drowning  men  who
grab  at  straws. Moreover, those who accept this  (il)logic
are  more  likely to sit back and do nothing... Except  talk
about  it...  And,  there is already enough  of  that  going

Taking  a closer look at the process of citizenship  reveals
nothing  suspect.  What makes a person  a  citizen  is,  and
always has been, birthright or naturalization. Birthright is
citizenship  by  virtue of birth within the geographical  or
political   jurisdiction   of   the   United   States,   and
naturalization is the granting of citizenship by  virtue  of
request,  via  compliance  with terms  associated  with  the
granting  of  the request, to foreigners who  come  to  this
country  and  apply  for it. Clause 4  of  the  Constitution
establishes an "uniform rule of naturalization."

Now  think about it... If the founders were going to provide
for  the  naturalization of foreigners, then they must  have
already  had an understanding of, and recognition  for,  the
citizenship that resulted from birth in respect of  everyone
who  was  already here (and long before the 14th amendment).
Indeed  this is evidenced by references on page 221  of  the
Annotated  Constitution reproduced here. (See side  bar  for
information on the Annotated Constitution)  (SCAN  221)  One
has  only  to  research  "intent"  to  find  that  the  14th
amendment defined citizenship because the 13th amendment did
not provide for the citizenship of blacks who had been freed
from  slavery.  See reference to Slaughter House cases,  and
U.S.  V. Wong Kim reproduced here. (SCAN 762 and 763) You'll
recall, this was shortly after slavery was abolished.

To  compound the question, Chief Justice Taney had erred  in
Scott  v.  Sanford (Dred Scott) and it would be  many  years
before  that decision would be overturned.  There were  many
who  doubted  that  any  Blacks  were  citizens;  Many  were
prepared to insist that although those who had been held  in
bondage  were  now  free men that they  could  never  become
citizens.    And;  without citizenship  there  could  be  no
guarantee  of  due  process  of  law.  The  fears  were  not
unfounded, so with these concerns in mind the 14th amendment
was  born. Reprinted to the right are portions of  Minor  v.
Happersett and U.S. v. Wong Kim (SCAN DEF_CIT) as  published
in  the Annotated Constitution which explains that the  14th
amendment   "was  intended  to  allay  doubts   and   settle
controversies" that had arisen.  The 14th Amendment was  not
a grant of citizenship!   It did not confer citizenship!  It
merely defined citizenship and the manner by which it  could
be obtained.


In  the  Dred Scott case Chief Justice Taney had  said  that
white  persons  were one of the two classes of  citizenship.
That  was  in  in  1857... (10 or 11 years before  the  14th
amendment) and before many Blacks became free men.  He  said
that  those enjoying citizenship were white persons born  in
the U. S. AND those who were at the time of the adoption  of
the  constitution  (1788)  recognized  as  citizens  in  the
several  states.  Justice Taney believed that  Blacks,  even
though  free,  could not be citizens. It  should  have  been
obvious  that Taney was incorrect because some Blacks   were
already  recognized as citizens.  They were free, they  were
property  holders. They were already citizens when  the  new
federal  government was established! Moreover,  they  became
citizens of this "new political body" (the United States  of
America  under the Constitution) which was to be a Republic,
by  virtue  thereof. Editors note *  The old political  body
was the union governed under the Articles of Confederation.

Rather than enforce Constitutional provisions, Justice Taney
used  80  years of slavery, art. I, sec. 9, cl. 2, and  Art.
IV,  sec.  1, clause 3 to conclusively establish  that  such
persons  and their descendants were not embraced within  the
term "citizen" as used in the Constitution. Taney was wrong.
See  reference  to Scott v. Sanford reproduced  here.  (SCAN

But...Just  as  there were Blacks who were  citizens,  there
were  also Blacks who were not. Taney's decision had left  a
vaccum  with varying degrees of doubt in the minds of  those
who  were already questioning the issue...  Smith v.  Turner
and  Scott  v.  Sanford are examples of this, and  serve  to
describe the origin of the question ultimately addressed  by
the 14th Amendment. See exhibit reproduced here. (SCAN MI)

Furthermore,  while the States may have  been  competent  to
"confer  State citizenship upon anyone in their midst,  they
could not make the recipient of such status a citizen of the
United States. No State can make you a citizen of the United
States.  The Slaughter House cases, and Colgate  v.  Harvey,
reference  reproduced here, (SCAN COLGATE) demonstrates  the
distinction. Such citizenship would occur by the granting of
a  naturalization certificate after a person  had  renounced
allegiance  to  any  other (foreign) government,  and  after
having  taken  a  test  to  prove an  understanding  of  the
principles  of  government here in the U.S,  in  conformance
with such provision.

It  should be rather obvious why there was a percieved  need
for  an  Amendment to settle such controversy.  Indeed,  the
Amendment  was needed to define citizenship to  include  all
those  who had been born in the U.S. regardless of parentage
or  heritage  thereby  eliminating the  error  in  Scott  v.
Sanford and disputes that were arising.


Having  covered  thus  far the historical  and  sociological
significance of abolishing slavery, and having  covered  the
provisions  for  citizenship, you should  now  see  why  the
release of men from the bonds of servitude had created  such
questions.  The  reasons  why  those  questions  had  to  be
answered center around the right to due process of law  that
is so important to us all.

In  order  to  assure that everyone born in the  U.S.  would
receive  it,  the  controversy had to be settled,  and  upon
defining citizenship, the 14th amendment proceeded to create
a  provision so that "No state could make or enforce any law
which  would  abridge the rights of citizens  of  the  U.S."
With such a provision in place, those rights could never  be
set  aside  by  the  States. The amendment  continues..."nor
shall  any  State  deprive any person of life,  liberty,  or
property..." This was to ensure due process of law for those
Blacks who had never had it before, and had always been told
that they had no standing in Court.

  The  14th  Amendment  came  about  so  as  to  define  the
citizenship status of Blacks and (with their citizenship) to
equally protect their God given rights to due process and so
forth.  Blacks  could  therefore now come  to  Court...Raise
arguments of defense, etc...things that they were never able
to  do before! See reference to  Scott v. Sanford - Munn  v.
Illinois, Yick Wo v. Hopkins and Hibben v. Smith, reproduced
here. (SCAN YICKWO - HIBBEN - MUNN - SCOTT) Some States  had
already made provisions in their respective Declarations  of
Rights  prior to any made under the Constitution. The  equal
protection provisions within those States  would be that the
State  Constitutions  could not be altered  to  deny  Blacks
their  rights, and of course, following the 14th  amendment,
they  would have equal protection in the federal  Courts  as
well. The 14th amendment  served to define citizenship so as
to  include  these  individuals. The Annotated  Constitution
published  at  the time says (regarding the 14th  amendment)
that  the word citizen is here used in a political sense  to
designate  one  who  has the rights  and  priviledges  of  a
citizen of a State or of the United States.

The   14th  Amendment  defined  citizenship  and  has   been
applicable  to  all persons who were born or naturalized  in
the  United States and subject to the jurisdiction  thereof,
ever  since.  This being the case, one can  easily  see  the
error of the Court in the Dred Scott case which stemed  from
social   imperatives  existing  outside  of   Constitutional
authority. The decision was eventually overturned,  but  the
point  that this drives home is that the 14th amendment  was
the  catalyst  for removing (by definition)  any  shadow  of
doubt  as  to who was, or was not, a citizen, and to  ensure
due process for all concerned.


The   obtuse  belief  that  the  14th  amendment  makes  you
"subjects"  of government is invalidated by case after  case
after   case.   Even  Marbury  v.  Madison   exclaims   such
nonsense..."It is a proposition too plain to  be  contested,
that  the Constitution controls any legislative act that  is
repugnant  to  it;  or that the legislature  may  alter  the
Constitution  by an ordinary act." If an oligarchical  legal
system facilitates the imposition of a personal agenda based
on  the philisophical  dreams of those who peddle influence,
this  does  not mean that such acts are in conformance  with
the  law. Nor does it mean that the 14th Amendment makes you
the  "subject of" a government within a government. What  it
does mean is that the Court is simply not enforcing the law.
Reproduced  here  are  pertinent references  to  Marbury  v.


To  more fully understand citizenship by virtue of birth  or
naturalization consider  someone who is born in the U.S. but
not  subject to the jurisdiction thereof? Confused?  How can
someone be born in the United States, but not be subject  to
the  jursidiction thereof? Consider the embassy of a foreign
government. The territory that comprises the embassy grounds
is  within  the geographical confines of the United  States,
however  it  is  not  subject to the jurisidicition  of  the
United  States because the United States, (wishing  to  have
diplomatic   ties  with  whatever  foreign   government   is
represented  by  the  embassy) has  by  agreement  conferred
jurisdiction  of the embassy grounds to that foreign  power.
Ever hear of Diplomatic immunity? If a child is born on  the
grounds   of  the  embassy,  it  is  not  born  within   the
geographical United States, as it would seem;  rather it  is
born  in a little piece of the country for which the Embassy
stands representative and therefore  it is NOT born  subject
to the jurisdiction of the United States.

(((Do   not  confuse  jurisdiction  by  the  United   States
government  as a burden of citizenship with jurisdiction  to
an   entity  legally  defined  as  the  "United  States"  as
established  by  some  body of law for  some  extemporaneous
purpose.  Title 26 is a prime example... Congress has  never
passed   a  law  or  statute  with  the  intent  to   impose
jurisdiction (of the United States) on U.S. citizens for the
purpose of income taxation. With regard to Income tax, there
simply  is no statute imposing such requirements, but,  that
does not mean that jurisidiction cannot, and is not, imposed
in those legitimate areas where you have a burden, duty, and
an obligation as a citizen. Therefore the two statements are
not manifestly incompatible.)))

To  cement  this understanding and emphasize the  importance
for  the preciseness of the language,  consider the scenario
involving  the birth of a child to American parents  on  the
high  seas. The vessel is a U.S. vessel subject to the  U.S.
maritime laws. The child is  considered to be a U.S. citizen
even  though not born within the geographical United  States
because the mantle of citizenship extends by birth from  his
or  her parents who were born or naturalized within the U.S.
while  on the vessel subject to U.S. jurisdiction.  Now,  if
the  child  was  born to U.S. parents in a  foreign  country
which was geographically under the jurisdiction of a foreign
government,  then  that child is a dual  national  and  upon
reaching his/her majority must decide which citizenshipis to
be  retained.  If that child remained in the  other  country
beyond  majority  expatriation  could  occur.   Repatriation
would require that one  "renounce" all otherallegiances...
Naturalization  might be required but in  either  case   the
duality is severed.

Here's another example...The wife of a Russian embassador is
pregnant and about to give birth. If the wife travels  to  a
hospital that is away from the grounds of the embassy (to an
area  not  subject to the jurisdiction of Russia) then  when
the  child  is  born it is a dual national.  It  is  both  a
citizen of Russia by virtue of the parents citizenship,  and
it  is  a citizen of the U.S. by virtue of its birth in  the
country  of  jurisdiction.  In  this  particular  case,  the
complications  of  dual  nationality  (Russian/U.S.)   could
present   grave   problems   which   is   why   under   such
circumstances,  a doctor is summoned to the embassy  grounds
to  deliver  the  child within the area strictly  under  the
jurisdiction  of Russia. This resolves the problem  of  dual

The  same misunderstanding of the 14th Amendment has led  to
confusion over the right of women to vote. For example; Some
have  alleged that women were not citizens prior to the 14th
amendment and thus had no voting rights.

By  now you can see the fallacy behind such an argument.  In
the case of Minor v. Happersett (SCAN MH) it was stated that
..."women  born  of  citizen parents  have  been  considered
citizens  of  the United States as much so before  the  14th
amendment as after." That means that the citizens rights  to
which they could lay claim, were just not excercised by  the
women  (even  though they had them). Women  were  raised  by
their  mothers to go to the drawing room after  meals,  they
would  do  their Petite point and so forth, play the  piano,
chat  or sew; And men would go to the billiard room  or  the
library  and they would smoke, tell jokes... talk  politics.
Women were told they should have babies, raise kids etc. The
schism between the genders was broad enough to perpetuate an
attitude that precluded the actual excercise of such  rights
by  the women who were unconcerned with the things that  men
usually  took  care of. The men would tell  the  women  that
politics (like fighting a war) was too much for a women  and
for  the most part, the women (at least of that day)  bought
it  !!!  While  the mores of society may have dictated  such
attitudes,  it  had  nothing  to  do  with  the  citizenship
provisions  of  the Constitution. The Constitution  was  not
deficient  towards  women recognized  the  God  given
rights  of  men  and  women  alike.  But,  because  of   the
predominant  social structure of that day carried  along  by
the momentum of peer pressure,  it was misconstrued by those
who  had no understanding of, (or didn't want to understand)
its provisions.

The  Constitution  has  been misconstrued  in  the  past  to
justify one's position, and it will no doubt be used in  the
future  for  the same purpose. The point is; if  the  Courts
allow  this to happen, they are not excercising some  extra-
Constitutional provision which permits them to do so! To the
contary,  if they allow it to happen, they are in error  and
their decisions reversible. If it is not challenged then  it
is the fault of those who do not challenge it.


The statements in (WHATEVER) that were reproduced on page  2
are  now all the more  relevant... "The opening sentence  is
throughout  affirmative and declaratory, intended  to  allay
doubts  and settle controversies which had arisen to  impose
any new restrictions upon citizenship" If it was intended to
"allay  doubts," then the definition was in  no  way  a  new
"legal  definition"  but  rather  a  clarification  of   the
inherent  definition of citizen which  because  of  all  the
clamor had become less than "self evident."  Citizenship had
not   been  defined  in  the  Constitution  because  it  was
considered  to  be  "self evident," but  it  was  now  being
formally  set  forth,  in order to settle  opinions  to  the
contrary,  and  any  disputes which  had  arisen  from  such
opinion.  This  being  the case, it is  still  "birth"  that
carries a grant of citizenship, not a  privilege granted  by
legal provisions in the 14th Amendment.

When  it  comes  to the 14th amendment and  its  language...
"subject   to  the  jurisdiction  thereof"  as  opposed   to
"subjects" of, and someone attempts to convince you that you
are  a "subject" of a Democracy or other governmental entity
foreign  to  our  Constitutional  Republic,  then  you   can
recommend  a refresher course in the English language,  with
perhaps a remedial in American History. This explanation  of
New World Order legal machinery simply doesn't fly.

We  have thoroughly researched the 14th amendment and  there
is  absolutely no basis for an argument that would  remotely
suggest that there is any validity to the belief that we are
"subjects" of government. And; though we consider it invalid
we recognize and do not deny the half truths associated with
it.   We  merely emphasize that the validity of the argument
as  a whole must not be left to speculation based upon those
half  truths.  Rather,  it is important  to  adhere  to  the
preciseness  of language when delving into or attempting  to
explain  the  current state of affairs.  Whether  it  be  to
explain   the   "how,   what,  why,  or   where,"   of   the
misapplication  of the IR Code, the money  debacle,  or  any
other subject matter, it is absolutely essential to consider
the  meaning  of the words and phrases used in the  text  of
supporting documentation, in terms of what it meant  at  the
time  it was written, by those who wrote it or were affected
by it.

To  facilitate any project of this magnitude one  should  be
equipped  with  as  many  as  all  5  of  the  Black's   law
dictionaries  (or  others) going back to  the  time  of  the
actual  writing of the text. Many novice researchers believe
that  the  "latest" version is the best, or  most  complete.
They don't understand or consider the evolution of language.
Because   of   this,   they   rarely   consider   that   the
meanings/definitions  of  words  change,  and  that  it   is
necessary,  when  reviewing  older  documents  to  determine
intent and so forth, to use the dictionaries that were  used
by those who wrote at the time.

To do so makes abundantly clear the intent of any given law,
and since the intent of the law is the force of the law,  it
goes  without saying that the theorist of such arguments  as
14th  amendment  citizenship are simply  not  in  tune  with
reality. That is; The logic used to support the argument  is
flawed  in  one  or more technical areas.  The  downside  to
repeating  the theory is that those individuals of influence
who may be sincerely interested in your contentions, and who
are  perhaps  on  the verge of becoming  involved  or  in  a
position to move the patriot cause forward (the tax movement
in  particular)  end up rejecting the whole movement because
they  have  the  knowledge  or  education  to  research  the
validity of the (errant) contention, and do. The fallacy  of
that  one (incorrect) argument espoused by one well  meaning
but  misguided  patriot  (repeating such  incorrect  subject
matter)  destroys the validity of everything  else  that  is
said  regarding the misapplication of law. It  happens  more
than  you  may think. The attorneys that we work with,  then
end  up  battling problems of credibility and other innuendo
rather than the subject matter.



The  Annotated Constitution was first published in  1915  in
the  form of a 150 page pamphlet. It was so popular that the
same  year another volume was published with over 1000 pages
and  it has been reprinted every decade since, except during
the  war.  The  Annotated  Constitution  lists  all  of  the
pertinent  Court  decisions and  historical  notes  as  they
relate to various sections, clauses, amendments etc.  It  is
indispensible  to Constitutional research because  it  saves
many hours of work that have already been done by others.

Back to Reasonable Action...