The Most Misused and Abused Amendment of the Constitution

“And of fatal tendency … to put, in the place of the delegated will of the Nation, the will of a party; …. cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the Power of the People and to usurp for themselves the reigns of Government;” George Washington in his Farewell Speech on September 19, 1796

The Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution has been a tool in the hands of subversives to undermine and nullify our Constitutional Republic.

Oddly enough the usurpers have actually admitted their crime. Retired Supreme Court Justice William Brennan acknowledged in his 1996, April 28th Op-Ed piece in the New York Times that he abandoned the original intent interpretation of the Constitution. “I  approached my responsibility of interpreting it [the Constitution] as a 20th-century American… for the genius of the Constitution rests not in any static meaning it may have had in a world dead and gone but in its evolving character.”

If the Constitution contains no “static meaning” what is the purpose of having a written document at all!  Our Founding Fathers clearly understood the danger which unprincipled men, not bound by the permanent chains of a written constitution, posed to liberty.

The Fourteenth Amendment has been twisted by a corrupt Federal judiciary into what is called the “incorporation doctrine.” This perversion claims that the Bill of Rights in the Constitution applies to the States as well as to the federal government.

When the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified, no one anticipated that it would ever be so grossly misused in this fashion. Fiftyseven years after ratification, the Supreme Court fired the first shot.

In the 1925 landmark case Gitlow v. New York, communist party member Benjamin Gitlow was convicted of violating New York’s Anarchy Law by advocating the violent overthrown of the government. Having exhausted the appeals on the State level, he took his case to the Supreme Court. He argued first that the New York’s law violated the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of expression. Second, that the Fourteenth Amendment “due process clause” incorporated the entire Bill of Rights applying them to the States.

Although the Court upheld Gitlow’s conviction and the New York law, it accepted this fallacious argument stating that “freedom of speech and of the press … are among the fundamental rights and ‘liberties’ protected by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.” The precedent was set; the Court claimed the Bill of Rights constituted a restraint not only on the federal government but also on each of the States as well.

Many revisionist historians would like to claim that those who ratified the Fourteenth, really intended that the “incorporation doctrine” be the understood interpretation of that amendment.

But this flies in the face of the facts of history. Within seven years of the ratification of the Fourteenth, Representative James G. Blaine (1830-1893) of Maine proposed the following constitutional amendment which required the states to abide by the religion clauses of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, as well as prohibiting the public funding of parochial schools.

“No State shall make any law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; and no money raised by taxation in any State, for the support of public schools, or derived from any public fund therefor, nor any public lands devoted thereto, shall ever be under the control of any religious sect, nor shall any money so raised, or lands so devoted be divided between religious sects or denominations.”1 This proposed constitutional amendment was never ratified. It failed because those involved in the  ratification of the Fourteenth understood the Fourteenth was never intended to ‘incorporate’ the Bill of Rights to make them binding on the States. They knew that it was a dangerous move to break down the solid wall of separation our founders established between State and federal governments.

This wall of separation between State and federal governments was intentionally designed by our founders because they knew that the people must be guarded from an overreaching centralized federal government. More powers were granted to the States, while strict limits were placed around the federal government.

You could think of it in this fashion. Only the federal government would have a monopoly and therefore must be strictly limited by enumerated, delegated powers. No one state would ever have a monopoly because if you didn’t like the government of one state you could freely leave for one you preferred. This made the State governments much more sensitive to the will of the people. The danger we are experiencing today of a federal government with nearly unlimited powers and rudely inattentive to the people was the very thing our founders feared the most. This fiction – the ‘incorporation doctrine’- is at the heart of the tyrannical federal government we have today.

Legal scholar Douglass Bradford expressed it well in the journal This World in 1993. “This interpretive device, many writers argue, allows the Supreme Court to transform the Bill of Rights from its original status, namely as a limitation on federal authority, into a specification of the constitutionally guaranteed rights incidental to national citizenship. Upon this rock rests the authority of the federal judiciary to oversee busing, quotas, school district boundaries, abortion, Miranda warnings, probable cause for arrest, prison and asylum standards, libel, pornography, subversive speech, and the separation of church and state. Incorporation has emerged as the linchpin of judicial activism in the twentieth century.”

The Court’s Gitlow Opinion was followed by continual onslaughts during these last 78 years. In the 1947 case Adamson v. California, Justice Hugo Black expressed his unconstitutional opinion in this fashion; “…. no state could deprive its citizens of the privileges and immunities of the Bill of Rights and therefore the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Bill of Rights into the Constitution and applies it to the states.”

It is this false interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment that has put the U.S. Supreme Court at the center of controversy in American politics. And this change has not been made by the amendment process, nor by legislation from the representatives of the people. Instead it has come from unelected and unaccountable judges who have usurped powers the Constitution never granted to them.

As citizens of this Constitutional Republic our form of government calls for us to require our  representatives to act in accordance with the Constitution. There is only one means for holding these unelected Justice accountable for their unconstitutional actions— Impeachment.

We must act by calling upon our elected representatives in the House and Senate to impeach all Supreme Court Justices and Federal Circuit Court Justices that have violated their oath of office and contravened the constitution from their position on the bench.

Furthermore, we should call upon our representatives to use the restrictive powers assigned to them in Art. III 2:2b. That power enables them to restrict the appellate jurisdiction in matters relating to the states such as the display of the Ten Commandments.

If we are unable to educate these representatives, then we must replace them to restore the Constitutional Republic handed down to us by those who understood that God’s Law is the only just foundation for any society.

1. Taken from the Congressional Record, 44th

>Congress, 1st session, 14 December, 1875.

The removal of Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore by a federal court is just one example of a judicial trend that has been going on in our country over the past few decades; the federalization of morality law.

Morality law, like capital punishment, is reserved for state legislatures  and courts.

When our Federal Congress allowed our Federal Supreme Court to hear a state abortion case, what happened? Every pro-life state in our Republic was forced to become pro-abortion, all at once, with one flick of the switch!

When our Federal Congress allowed our Federal Supreme Court to hear a state case on prayer in government schools, what happened? Every pro-prayer state in our Republic was forced to become anti-prayer, all at once,
with one flick of the switch!

When our Federal Congress allowed our Federal Supreme Court to hear a state case on sodomy, what happened? Our Federal Supreme Court sodomized every anti-sodomy state in our Republic, all at once, with one flick of the switch.

Displaying the 10 commandments on government property is a morality issue that is reserved for state legislatures and courts. The federal courts have no right to intervene.