Friday, October 28, 2011
The 14th Amendment Clarified
10/28/11
FOUND IT; IN BLACK AND WHITE -The 14th Amendment Clarified
Truth: Yes, but not in the way the purveyors of this argument would have you believe - and the distinction is significant.
The US Supreme Court ruled that the federal courts had no jurisdiction to even hear the Dred Scott matter because there was no issue cognizable under the federal Constitution. The Court ruled that there was no issue cognizable under the federal Constitution because Dred Scott and his family were not "Citizens of the United States", as such phrase was used in the Constitution, and as it was meant by the men who constructed the Constitution.
As previously discussed, no amendment can change what the Founding Fathers meant when they wrote "Citizen of the United States" in the opening of the US Constitution. Therefore, the Amendment could not overturn the underlying Constitutional premise the Court used to reach its determination, "WHICH WAS THAT BLACK FOLKS (AND THEIR POSTERITY_ WHO WERE BROUGHT HERE FOR THEPURPOSE OF SLAVERY COULD NEVER BE CITZENS IN THE SENSE IN WHICH THAT TERM IS USED IN THE MAIN BODY OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION.In other words, the Amendment could not revise history.
What the Amendment did was to "add to" the Constitution by ESTABLISHING a SECOND [TWO CONCEPT] "class of citizen" over whom the federal courts would have jurisdiction.=????????? However, underlying this seemingly favorable course of action was a pervasive and insidious problem in the making.=????
Know that there are TWO systems being operated and African Americans aren't allowed to exercise all the rights of people of the larger society.[?????]
Socialpeacest
FOUND IT; IN BLACK AND WHITE -The 14th Amendment Clarified
Truth: Yes, but not in the way the purveyors of this argument would have you believe - and the distinction is significant.
The US Supreme Court ruled that the federal courts had no jurisdiction to even hear the Dred Scott matter because there was no issue cognizable under the federal Constitution. The Court ruled that there was no issue cognizable under the federal Constitution because Dred Scott and his family were not "Citizens of the United States", as such phrase was used in the Constitution, and as it was meant by the men who constructed the Constitution.
As previously discussed, no amendment can change what the Founding Fathers meant when they wrote "Citizen of the United States" in the opening of the US Constitution. Therefore, the Amendment could not overturn the underlying Constitutional premise the Court used to reach its determination, "WHICH WAS THAT BLACK FOLKS (AND THEIR POSTERITY_ WHO WERE BROUGHT HERE FOR THEPURPOSE OF SLAVERY COULD NEVER BE CITZENS IN THE SENSE IN WHICH THAT TERM IS USED IN THE MAIN BODY OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION.In other words, the Amendment could not revise history.
What the Amendment did was to "add to" the Constitution by ESTABLISHING a SECOND [TWO CONCEPT] "class of citizen" over whom the federal courts would have jurisdiction.=????????? However, underlying this seemingly favorable course of action was a pervasive and insidious problem in the making.=????
Know that there are TWO systems being operated and African Americans aren't allowed to exercise all the rights of people of the larger society.[?????]
Socialpeacest
