By: Toddy Littman
Please see “14th Amendment Ends Obamacare” (Part I), here.
So now that I’ve articulated the situation along with facts according to history, as well as outlining this clause that those who want to subvert our nation (which, though this is being brought up by Democrats of an extreme left and collectivist point of view, is easily a proposition both parties can agree to if it causes the national government to gain more power, and therefore is self-aggrandizing as to the importance of the national government and the parties thereof), I am going to submit a solution, not because of its legality and some winning cause, but because it demonstrates the same tactic can be used to properly nullify this 14th Amendment, Section 4, argument, to the extent it can lead to an immediate impeachment of the President of the United States if they act upon what Pelosi has said.
To illustrate just how out of date this interpretation of Section 4 is, here is the whole clause in its entirety, please pay close attention to the part after the 1st sentence:
“The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. [Begins joint and several binding prohibitions upon each State imposed according to the conditions that follow] But neither the United States nor any State [Condition 1] shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or [Condition 2] any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; [conclusive command, result of either condition being met] but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.” Emphasis mine, same 14th Amendment link, http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_amendments_11-27.html
Now, let us go along with the Democrats for sake of argument and end the use of this 14th Amendment Section 4 clause once and for all, which means: We must use this clause in a legal proceeding. I wish it could be directly done by the people (and some lawyer may find a way to do that) however, I contend that this requires a State to do it, and I believe the case would be bolstered by it being one of the “former Confederate” States.
I’d cite a poll regarding Americans wanting the repeal of Obamacare but no reason to as from its inception to now the majority of Americans have and continue to oppose the Affordable Care Act, a.k.a. Obamacare and want it repealed.
Further, a recent poll shows 75% of Americans want government to cut spending.
Lastly, and actually most important, is that the United States of America was founded by We The People through using the republican principle (representative government).
The Constitution as ratified features an “Enumerated Powers Clause,” (Article I, Section 8) explaining by its very existence the limited and not general powers of Congress and the National Government as a whole, which explains why the language of the Constitution is directive to the institutions of government, pertaining to the instructions of each branch in the performance of their duties. There is no commandment upon the people, and that this construction of the Constitution, both in what it includes and what it excludes, is a conclusive demonstration that the purpose, intention, and meaning of the Constitution is to limit government in order to assure freedom, that these limits are what protect us. This is the consistent purpose of the Constitution because it is an instrument of the people in fulfilling their unalienable right, the “governments are instituted amongst men” part of the Declaration of Independence, the ratified Constitution an express act in the affirmative, unequivocal, absolute statement of “the consent of the governed” and the “Will of the People.”
To more certainly illustrate the limited purpose of the Constitution one must note that the powers granted were granted under condition of Amendment and without even the slightest suggestion of the enumerated powers being irrevocable.
I am thinking I need to be even more clear here so, let’s look at the 2nd Amendment:
“[Condition of securing freedom established] A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, [a statement of the existing right and prohibition of it being affected by the national government in any manner] the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Now let’s look at the 1st Amendment:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
I did these in reverse because it is important to see that the 1st Amendment only prohibits Congress, only speaks to a limit on Congress affecting these existing rights it proscribes no law can affect. Might this explain why regulations from the executive branch are being done to affect the purposes of its occupant regarding abortion and in relation to Churches? Might this also be why this is so complicated to remedy and our courts so mistaken time and time again in their claims of what Our Written Constitution says?
To see the power of the 2nd Amendment is to note it doesn’t mention any particular branch of government as prohibited from this infringement upon a right existing prior to the existence of the Constitution and government, and instead is a categorical denial of infringement upon every form of it by any branch of government whatsoever in that it is an Amendment to the Constitution creating the government and is an express limit on the entire National Government from any measure of intrusion upon the (then, and now) existing right to bear arms. This should easily explain how Obama has no right to make regulations on guns, what we can “keep” and “bear” is entirely up to us. Government can only assert any sort of interest in making sure they don’t fall into the hands of those who are mentally disturbed on the grounds of commerce, for example, suggesting that these disturbed folks make America’s ability to sell arms abroad more difficult (not something you’ll ever hear from Obama).
So now, using this known express and established knowledge of the limits imposed on government by Our Written Constitution, the second part (“condition 1”) of 14th Amendment Section 4 features a criteria that is available to perception, and thereby assertion, by any State in the Union:
“…nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States”
If the point of Our Written Constitution establishing the government of the United States is “Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,” our Founders carrying out a literal act in observance of “we hold these truths to be self evident…” and acting according to our declared convictions via the unanimous Declaration of Independence, then how is Obamacare, an act which the American people did not ask for (and the vast majority opposed); an act unread by our representatives (and thereby denying We The People a republican form of government, as they cannot represent us without having actually read the bill for there would be nothing for them to consider, to debate and deliberate over, without actually reading the bill); and that this is tantamount to an unconscionable act in signing a contract one hasn’t read, and is the government, “destructive of these ends,” “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness,” only further establishing that Obamacare is an act of insurrection or rebellion, not just an aid to these. And though Obamacare isn’t the first of this type of rebellion of the government against We The People, their Masters, it remains the most intrusive and it appears that Obamacare is being used as precedent for government to further encroach on the rights of the people, to further set aside and ignore the limits placed on government for the sake of the power that a few can wield in proxy. Essentially, those in government have decidedly confused their voting privilege in regard to governance with being a fiduciary entrusted with our private and personal finances and property.
Nancy Pelosi’s “Meet the Press” statements at the beginning of Part I make it clear that they see themselves as the proxy to make commitments to spend our money and assume an obligation of payment on the behalf of each citizen as well, even if many didn’t agree with the actions of the Congress in taking on that debt (and many do not now, some 75% want government to cut spending).
If any State sees Obamacare as an act of insurrection or rebellion they are compelled not to pay for it by the 14th Amendment, they are bound to question all public debt that isn’t spent for “debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion.”
Now, the point of a State bringing this case is not to win and hope the courts proclaim Obamacare an act of insurrection or rebellion, but instead to get the courts to rule this clause of the 14th Amendment was specific to the Civil War and is now obsolete in any application to existing and current government.
As a personal note, if you think this was long-winded or going into it in too much detail then don’t ask me to send a letter explaining what I am talking about. And I would think anyone who is serious about fighting for our freedom would be glad to have this kind of thing fully explained so they can take such an approach and run with it themselves in pursuing what they would like to pursue in assuring our Freedom and a Constitutional Government thereby protecting Individual Liberty.
May God have guided you in reading this,
P.S. An aside to when I looked up the 1828 definition of ‘includes’ in Part I is this quotation from Noah Webster:
They choose men, not because they are just men, men of religion and integrity, but solely for the sake of supporting a party. This is a fruitful source of public evils. But as surely as there is a God in heaven, who exercises a moral government over the affairs of this world, so certainly will the neglect of the divine command, in the choice of rulers, be followed by bad laws and as bad administration; by laws unjust or partial, by corruption, tyranny, impunity of crimes, waste of public money, and a thousand other evils. Men may desire and adopt a new form of government; they may amend old forms, repair breaches and punish violators of the constitution; but there is, there can be no effectual remedy, but obedience to the divine law.” — Value of the Bible (unpublished manuscript) :: 1834.
This as a nice starting point for discussing the moral compass of government, as it sets forth what Our Written Constitution is intended to do as an instrument we can enforce to “repair breaches and punish violators of the constitution.” This is especially important in light of Noah Webster having been the editor of the Federalist Party paper, which more than suggests Noah Webster knows the Constitution and is speaking directly to its intended purpose.
Further, Mr. Webster’s Statement is rather prophetic while explaining that the condition today is little changed from the conditions of the past, that We The People have been duped often by this thing known as “party.” The sad tale to this is that there are so few who want to know the original meaning, the context necessary to understand the purposes of the past; no more Noah Websters to put together some writing to help us understand by asserting a position and standing upon a purpose so rightly understood and woven into the fabric of our being from our first breath that we would understand the meaning instantly. This appears to me to be the purpose of the miseducation in driving us away from who we are that leads to an even more bleak prospect for the future. Our true course in what we’re doing should be rather obvious, and as such, my mistake is to keep telling people what it is instead of helping them calm, to be still and know, to discover the answers as God sets them forth in the most sacred place of their being. I can only hope they’ll find the meaning of what I’ve just put in writing and apprehend at once their conviction.
By: Toddy Littman
The headline is a premature hope of a desired outcome of awakened Americans discovering how much their lives change when government is making their decisions for them.
Recently, Nancy Pelosi mentioned the 4th Section of the 14th Amendment (per a recent article at the Huffington Post):
“Appearing on CBS’ “Face the Nation,” Pelosi offered her strongest endorsement to-date of the 14th Amendment option, which holds that Congress doesn’t have the power to use the debt ceiling as a hostage-taking device because the validity of the debt “shall not be questioned.”
“Nancy Pelosi: Well, you ask the Republicans, because we always passed the debt ceiling. When President Bush was president, as he was incurring these massive debts, and the Republicans weren’t saying ‘boo’ at the time. There should be, this is a conversation where there should be no doubt. In fact, if I were president, I’d use the 14th Amendment, which says that the debt of the United States will always be paid.
“Bob Schieffer: You would just go ahead and do it, you wouldn’t wait for the Congress?
“Nancy Pelosi: I would just go do it. But the Congress has incurred much of this debt. And so what are you saying, we incurred it but we’re not going to pay it? If you want to say, ‘We are not going to do it so much in the future,’ well that’s another thing. But you can’t say, ‘I’m not paying my past debts.’” — Emphasis mine, link below.
The report further explains this is gaining support by democrats on Capital Hill (should be “Capitol” but with the way they spend our money I am figuring that is how the wrong use of the term has become the accepted norm). http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/06/14th-amendment-option_n_2420461.html
Now, to cite the actual portion of the 14th Amendment mentioned, the first sentence of section 4, to show that this use by Nancy Pelosi is a calculated misuse of a clause passed by Congress June 13, 1866, and ratified July 9, 1868 and is specific to the Civil War, you will see that Pelosi is attempting a spin of the meaning that is an abuse of language and bets on the American People’s lack of knowledge of their own Constitution:
“The validity of the public debt of the United States, [condition, Act of Congress, 1st prong] authorized by law, [condition, exclusive inclusion, 2nd prong] including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, [conclusive command upon both conditions being true] shall not be questioned.” — Emphasis mine, http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_amendments_11-27.html
To illustrate the intention of the drafters of the 14th Amendment, who wanted to put an end to things they saw to be perpetuating the continuance of Slavery as an institution even after the abolition of Slavery by the 13th Amendment, they knew this meant that the national government would need to be able to act without the assertions of constraint and demands for national government abstention that would be made by States in their rightful independent capacities, the States lawful right to assert their powers not granted by the Constitution. So the Congress created a condition of “authorized by law” as a condition to the validity of the public debt knowing full well the Southern States would capitulate after losing the war, that the Northern states would “authorize by law” the debt incurred to rebuild the South and reinstate the commercial stability of the nation as a whole, particularly after all the debt created by the North to afford the war via the use of paper money (see “National Bank Act” and “Legal Tender Cases” at a Law Library or via Lexus-Nexus).
Then, additionally, the drafters of the 14th Amendment caused an “earmark” of these funds for a specific purpose by using the term “including” prior to describing the types of debts to which “the validity of the public debt” in borrowing to pay immediately “shall not be questioned.” However this is the “slippery slope” of the use of the term “includes,” as we all have seen “including, but not limited to” in legal instruments as a means of assuring an expansive interpretation of the criteria stated, usually thereafter.
Now to show how I arrived at this understanding of the 14th Amendment, we’ll use the closest possible source of word definitions relative to the time the 14th Amendment was written, Webster’s 1828 dictionary:
“1. To confine within; to hold; to contain; as, the shell of a nut includes the kernel; a pearl is included in a shell. [But in these senses we more commonly use inclose.]
“2. To comprise; to comprehend; to contain. The history of England necessarily includes a portion of that of France. The word duty, includes what we owe to God, to our fellow men, and to ourselves; it includes also a tax payable to the government.”– http://www.1828-dictionary.com/d/search/word,include.
As you can see, these above definitions are past tense uses in reference to already defined objects and ideas and are not the use of “including” to reference a statement in criteria and defining classes as parameters as it is in the 4th Section of the 14th Amendment.
You’ll find the 1913 definition located at this site as well, however that would not pertain to a meaning in 1865, unless it was the result of the 1865 use.
And to further demonstrate this gray area, a lawyer has blogged about the Black’s Law dictionary meaning as opposed to the rulings of some court cases to the contrary, http://www.adamsdrafting.com/2007/04/02/including-without-limitation/.
TO CLARIFY: I do not suppose myself smarter than these other sources, nor more capable of understanding than the people who were living at the time of the 14th Amendment. However, I must submit that the character and purpose of the Constitution is best described by the Preamble to the original Bill of Rights instrument containing the first 12 proposed articles of Amendment to the Constitution, the Preamble describing its purpose as “amendment:”
“THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.” — Emphasis mine, http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html
As this Preamble states the very Custom of over 95% of the Constitution, even as Amended at the time of passing the 14th Amendment (1865), there is little doubt that the interpretation of “ including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion,” requires use of the context of the rest of the Constitution, and is therefore a “declaratory and restrictive clause” as to what specific objects are included when discerning whether the public debt can be questioned AFTER determining if the debt is authorized by law – essentially a two-pronged approach to determine the purpose for the debt incurred being a satisfactory constitutional purpose and therefore the debt incurred to pay for this purpose is subject to the conclusive command, “shall not be questioned.”
Though modern day legislation, The Budget Control Act, is the 1st prong of the test to determine if the conclusive command is applicable, if we were to extend the 14th Amendment passed in its already fulfilled and completed purpose, which, if not for the passionate dissension over slavery (which was used as a ploy to rally for war) it would not have resulted in an Amendment to the Constitution, and instead would have been done as a mere act of Congress after the war. I contend the Constitution was mistakenly used to bring about a perception of finality to the issue by using the 14th Amendment’s recital as a record of passing through and arriving at the winners and losers of the Civil War, a result that may not have been calculated but helped to liquidate the original purpose and authority of the Constitution as it pertains to an instrument limiting government. This may very well be why Pelosi & Company, including Bill Clinton, have gone to citing what Republican Abraham Lincoln did in getting the 14th Amendment done (essentially amending the Constitution to enforce the 13th Amendment, even if it was the beginning of the final blow ending any semblance of State, as well as individual, Sovereignty and rights, see http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/19/bill-clinton-debt-ceiling_n_902266.html, http://slatest.slate.com/posts/2011/07/19/bill_clinton_14th_amendment_constitution_clinton_says_he_d_use_c.html).
To be Continued….[Continued here]
Thank you for reading Part I,
Hat Tip: BB
Mostly a bit of news and a variety of materials that are worthy of being shared.
Let me begin with a brief update on the little boy I’ve been tracking — Zakkai. He’s making good progress in his recovery and is becoming more like himself. But all is not smooth: he’s clingy, which is understandable considering the trauma he’s had; wants to be carried on stairs, which he finds difficult to navigate; and still has some discomfort. Since his balance isn’t good and he has other problems connected to the surgery on his spine, he has rehabilitation specialists working with him to help him regain his former mobility.
Please God, a matter of time. The family prays for a return to normalcy.
The Center for Near East Policy Research, which has produced a variety of materials on UNRWA over the years, has just put out a new video on the “Right of Return” as taught in the UNRWA schools.
See this and understand why UNRWA is part of the problem, and why peace is not possible while the Palestinian Arab kids in its classrooms continue to be taught to kill Jews in order to regain “their” land. This is stunning documentation — you get it from the mouths of students, teachers and administrators themselves (with subtitles). What the kids say is most stunning of all:
This is one of those things that everyone should know about. UNRWA would have people believe that it is a “humanitarian” organization benignly serving a population disenfranchised by Israel.
Please spread this around broadly.
Lawrence Korb, who served as Assistant Secretary of Defense during the Jonathan Pollard affair, was here this week. You can find here (scroll down a bit) a video clip from his news conference on Tuesday, making the case for Jonathan’s release. He provides important background information:
Unreal. Incredible. But no surprise in this unreal and incredible world. John Brennan, who by all accounts makes Chuck Hagel look good, has been confirmed by the Senate as the next CIA head.
What is there to say that hasn’t already been said?
Barry Rubin, whom I cite often because of his sharp analyses, gave me a laugh today. And when I can laugh about Secretary of State Kerry, I think it’s worth sharing:
“In practically his first outing as secretary of state abroad, John Kerry made some remarkable statements in a meeting with young Germans. The main thing being widely quoted is this:
“‘In America, you have a right to be stupid if you want to be,’ he said. ‘And we tolerate it. We somehow make it through that. Now, I think that’s a virtue. I think that’s something worth fighting for.”’
“Of course, there’s a right to be stupid in America! Indeed, just this week it’s been expanded into having a right to be simultaneously stupid and secretary of defense!”
Rubin also quoted Kerry saying something else so incredibly insensitive and impolitic that I did a double-take:
“You know, education, if you make the most of it, if you study hard and you do your homework, and you make an effort to be smart, uh, you, you can do well. If you don’t, you get stuck in Iraq.”
For those of us who might doubt that even Kerry would really say anything quite so obtuse, we are provided with a video clip:
America is in a heap of trouble.
It was announced yesterday that Obama has decided to skip a planned speech in the Knesset when he’s here, opting for a more “politically neutral” venue instead. Apparently he’s afraid of being interrupted by right wing MKs.
MKs Avi Wurtzman (Habayit Hayehudi) and Tzipi Hotovely (Likud-Beiteinu) have written to the president urging him to reconsider.
US “sources” are saying that rumors that the president will be demanding a timetable for withdrawals from Netanyahu are not true — that he intends to present a “general framework” for peace and no more. Do not ask me what a “general framework” means, or how it differs from the 100 previous frameworks that failed.
Who knows, by the time I next write, there may be a coalition. There was no way Netanyahu was going to miss that March 16 deadline set by Obama, upon which his coming would depend.
For a while now it’s been a question of who blinks first and according to latest rumors, it’s Yair Lapid who has, surrendering his demand for the Foreign Ministry (which is being saved for Lieberman). Apparently agreement is now close.
There’s a great deal yet to discover.
Hat Tip: BB