Youngevity BTT 2.0 + Healthy Start Paks 2.0
HEIGHT=

Youngevity BTT 2.0 + Healthy Start Paks 2.0

Coffees from Youngevity
HEIGHT=

Coffees from Youngevity

Youngevity Be The Change

Youngevity Healthy Chocolate

GOFoods Youngevity

Join or Create a Ron Paul Meetup,.
HEIGHT=

Join or Create a Ron Paul Meetup,.

Ron Paul Forums
HEIGHT=

Ron Paul Forums

APFN Message Board
HEIGHT=

APFN Message Board

Leo Emil Wanta / Wantagate Links

++++++++++++++++++ EBAY ITEMS 4 SALE ++++++++++++++++++

« P. Adolphe Kauffmann Original Historical Artwork with Nazi Waffen SS stamp, etc | Main | Ben Swann falls flat, right at the starting gate, cites Sec. 4 of the FAILED 14TH: “The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law … shall not be questioned.” »

Private Attorney General TAKES ON PUSH-OVER Antonin Scalia: 14th Amendment for all, not ‘only the blacks’

On Thursday, October 17, 2013 1:53 PM, "Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S."  wrote:

>  The 14th Amendment grants equal protection to all citizens.

No it does NOT:  it attempted to create a second "privileges and immunities"
clause for federal citizens and ONLY for federal citizens:  

http://supremelaw.org/ref/whuscons/whuscons.htm#14th-amend

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  its
jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

That second such clause was fabricated because blacks freed by the Thirteenth Amendment 
were NOT considered eligible for the organic Privileges and Immunities Clause
(even though they were free:  here, Congress made a HUGE MISTAKE):

The latter organic Clause was intended for State Citizens -- the ONLY class of Citizens
that existed between 1788 and 1866.

If there were still only one (1) class of citizens, there would be
no need for a second "privileges and immunities" clause!!


Quod erat demonstrandum!


It's very revealing how self-proclaimed luminaries like Scalia
think they can ignore completely EVERY OTHER Court
which has already adjudicated and decided that issue.

So much for the Full Faith and Credit Clause, eh Scalia?

http://supremelaw.org/rsrc/twoclass.htm

The  first  clause  of  the  fourteenth  amendment  made  negroes
citizens of  the United  States**, and  citizens of  the State in
which they  reside, and  thereby created two classes of citizens,
one of the United States** and the other of the state.
                             [Cory et al. v. Carter, 48 Ind. 327]
                              [(1874) headnote 8, emphasis added]

The first  clause of  the fourteenth  amendment  of  the  federal

Constitution made  negroes citizens  of the  United States**, and

citizens of  the state  in which they reside, and thereby created

two classes of citizens, one of the United States** and the other

of the state.                             

[4 Dec. Dig. '06, p. 1197, sec. 11]

There are LOTS of other problems with Scalia's ERROR,
as explained fully here:

http://supremelaw.org/authors/mitchell/citizenship.for.dummies.htm


Congress could not remove the obstacles identified in that [Dred Scott] decision 
solely by means of Federal legislation enacted by that Body.



See also Dyett v. Turner, which proved that this FAILED "amendment"
was FORCED -- at gunpoint -- on the Southern States that voted AGAINST it,
and the one Southern State that voted FOR it was spared that invasion:


http://supremelaw.org/cc/knudson/judnot09.htm#dyett

http://supremelaw.org/cc/nordbrok/note14am.htm


There is a lot more documentation impugning that failed "amendment" here:

http://supremelaw.org/ref/14amrec/


To be perfectly BLUNT about it, Scalia is FULL OF HIMSELF!

http://supremelaw.org/rsrc/commissions/evidence.folders.2004-03-16.htm


p.s. Hey, Tony?  What about all those impostors sitting RIGHT NEXT TO YOU???

-- 
Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Private Attorney General, 18 U.S.C. 1964
http://www.supremelaw.org/decs/agency/private.attorney.general.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/reading.list.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/index.htm (Home Page)
http://www.supremelaw.org/support.policy.htm (Support Policy)
http://www.supremelaw.org/guidelines.htm (Client Guidelines)
http://www.supremelaw.org/support.guidelines.htm (Policy + Guidelines)

All Rights Reserved without Prejudice 

On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 1:33 PM, Allan Rietow <arietow@tnc.org> wrote:

   

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/oct/16/antonin-scalia-sends-sparks-14th-all-not-only-blac/  

Antonin Scalia: 14th Amendment for all, not ‘only the blacks’

The Washington Times
Wednesday, October 16, 2013
·         ** FILE ** Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia responds to a question during his appearance in part of a lecture series at Tufts University, Wednesday, Oct. 2, 2013, in Medford, Mass. Scalia, who has served on the nation's highest court since 1986 following a nomination by President Ronald Reagan, spoke about interpreting the U.S. Constitution. (AP Photo/Josh Reynolds)
 
Supreme CourtJustice Antonin Scalia issued what’s sure to spark a fury of debate between the warring sides of affirmative action, telling a packed courtroom on Tuesday that the 14th Amendment wasn’t penned simply to protecthttp://images.intellitxt.com/ast/adTypes/icon1.png blacks.
“My goodness, I thought we’ve … held that the 14th Amendment protects all races,” he said. “I mean, that was the argument in the early years, that it protected only … the blacks. But I thought we rejected that. You, you say now that we have to proceed as though its purpose is not to protect whites, only to protect minorities?”
Justice Scalia made the comments in reference to the Supreme Court case about a Michigan voter referendum that banned race as a collegehttp://images.intellitxt.com/ast/adTypes/icon1.pngadmission consideration.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor seemed at odds with Justice Scalia’s assessment of the state backlash against affirmative actionhttp://images.intellitxt.com/ast/adTypes/icon1.png.
“It was intended to bring back segregation and appears to have done just that,” she said, The Post reported.
The 14th Amendment grants equal protection to all citizens.
 
 
--

October 18, 2013 | Permalink