Fourteenth Amendment

[JDX]

<Note: This topic has been split from another thread (link)>

If we define a "right" as some action you can take independently of anyone else, and puts no imposition on any other individual, then is it proper to label the protections afforded by the criminal justice system "rights"?

IMO the day the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution was ratified individual rights became privileges. This was accomplished by the wording (legalese) of the 14th Amendment. It's assumed overt meaning (to grant citizenship to freed slaves) was obscured by the double meanings of the legalese used.

Here's the first Article:

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.

Let's examine some of these words:

>>All persons<<

"Person" is a legal term meaning "corporate entity". Looking at the wording of "statutes" or "code" (not much fun) you'll see "laws" apply to "persons" not human beings. Person even includes business corporations and all the "States" in it's legal meaning.

>>born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to<<

"Subject to" is not a term applied to a free man. It is applied to one who is ruled, in this case, a "person" (corporate entity) under the control of national, state, and local corporate governments.

>>the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States<<

"United States" referred to here is the federal corporate government. This amendment makes all "persons" born in America US citizens (subjects) not free men.

>>and of the State wherein they reside<<

"Reside" is a legal term stemming from the Latin "res" meaning "thing".

It's interesting to note: that prior to this amendment the words "citizen" and "State" were spelled "Citizen" and "state". There is always a reason for "consistencies" where "law" is concerned. A Citizen was a free man and a citizen today is a "subject".

It may seem that government has been chipping away at individual rights but in actuality they were lost with the ratification of the 14th Amendment. Before the 14th Amendment Common Law was in effect. After its ratification the path was cleared for corporate government to regulate the lives of all citizens. Thus statutory law was born.

Under common law in order for a crime to have occurred a victim must exist. Today, statutory law allows government to enact whatever regulation receiving sufficient legislative votes. That's why we have victimless "crimes" today.

IMO practically everything "government" does today is immoral. Serving on a jury makes you a government pawn unless you exercise your right to "jury nullification". IE: Judge the "law" as well as the accused.

Edited September 11, 2005 by softwareNerd

[Captain Nate]

On the other hand, you could use the word "rights" to refer to a different concept: guarantees and protections actually available under a particular legal system (as opposed to those that ought to be available). If one uses the word thus, one could say: "People in the Soviet Union had no rights", as opposed to saying "People in the Soviet Union were denied their rights".

So in the context of the American Legal system, we could call it a "right."

Let's examine some of these words:

>>All persons<<

"Person" is a legal term meaning "corporate entity". Looking at the wording of "statutes" or "code" (not much fun) you'll see "laws" apply to "persons" not human beings. Person even includes business corporations and all the "States" in it's legal meaning.

I do not think that this is a valid point. The term "Persons" is used extensively throughout the Constitution prior to the 14th amendment. In fact, the term "persons" is used instead of the word "slaves" in some instances, demonstrating that the Founders did not want a Constitution condoning the dehumanization of blacks. Contrast this with the Confederate Constitution, which is nearly identical except that the term is often replaced with the words "negro slave."

>>born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to<<

"Subject to" is not a term applied to a free man. It is applied to one who is ruled, in this case, a "person" (corporate entity) under the control of national, state, and local corporate governments.

I have never considered the term this way, but that is interesting.

It may seem that government has been chipping away at individual rights but in actuality they were lost with the ratification of the 14th Amendment.

I don't know if you have a solid argument in this. Prior to the 14th amendment, the rights of American citizens were not legally guarenteed by the States, whereas the intent (I'm not saying the effect) of the 14th amendment was to protect these individual rights on the state-level.

Under common law in order for a crime to have occurred a victim must exist. Today, statutory law allows government to enact whatever regulation receiving sufficient legislative votes. That's why we have victimless "crimes" today.

Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't statutory law preferable according to Objectivism? Common Law is mostly based on judicial precedents, whereas statutory law (ideally) codifies laws in a plain, written form.

Also, prior to the 14th amendment, State legislatures were free to enact statutes in almost ANY sphere, limited only by their own Constitutional protections, which may be less than those found nationally.

[softwareNerd]

So in the context of the American Legal system, we could call it a "right."

If you use "right" to mean the actual guarantees under a particular legal system, yes.

[JDX]

I do not think that this is a valid point. The term "Persons" is used extensively throughout the Constitution prior to the 14th amendment. In fact, the term "persons" is used instead of the word "slaves" in some instances, demonstrating that the Founders did not want a Constitution condoning the dehumanization of blacks. Contrast this with the Confederate Constitution, which is nearly identical except that the term is often replaced with the words "negro slave."

The legal term "person" means a corporate entity. Government can not lawfully regulate the lives of free men. But they can legally control a corporate entity (a person) which owes its existence to government. You'll need to do some research to confirm this.

I have never considered the term (subject) this way, but that is interesting.

Consider that human beings would not be "subject" to a government which they created. But, "government" could create a new identity for every citizen allowing for control of that which government created.

I don't know if you have a solid argument in this. Prior to the 14th amendment, the rights of American citizens were not legally guarenteed by the States, whereas the intent (I'm not saying the effect) of the 14th amendment was to protect these individual rights on the state-level.

The real intent and of the 14th Amendment was to create a second class citizen even though it was propagandized as a protection of rights. Here you see some of the best work produced by extremely devious legal minds. Is it a conspiracy? Call it what you will. Politicians have always been power hungry. To accomplish their goals they needed to separate Citizens from their rights, and they have succeeded. Hopefully the current system is not the end of the story.

Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't statutory law preferable according to Objectivism? Common Law is mostly based on judicial precedents, whereas statutory law (ideally) codifies laws in a plain, written form.

Statutory law is the vehicle by which the current de facto legislators enact their political opinions and call them "law". This allows them to criminalize whatever they damn please, supposedly for the "greater good", but at the expense of the rights of the individual. It is a subjective system which I hope objectivists would recognize for what it is.

Do you think that humans should own their own bodies? "Government" doesn't recognize that right. Legislators believe they can regulate what humans may ingest, and how they should act in certain situations, even if their is no victim except possibly oneself. My position is "if there is no victim there is no crime".

"Government" is playing the unnecessary role of an exterior authority. Religion and main stream medicine are other examples of exterior authorities. Their undeserved authority exists only in the mind of the people they control. When people begin to seek solutions to societal and personal problems from within instead of from external authorities power will return to the individual.

Also, prior to the 14th amendment, State legislatures were free to enact statutes in almost ANY sphere, limited only by their own Constitutional protections, which may be less than those found nationally.

The state constitutions I've examined are within the limits of the US Constitution.

[softwareNerd]

The real intent and of the 14th Amendment was to create a second class citizen even though it was propagandized as a protection of rights.

Are you deducing intent from the text of the amendment, or from other source?

[Captain Nate]

The legal term "person" means a corporate entity.

Not in the Constitution. In the context of the Constitution, it actually means a person.

Consider that human beings would not be "subject" to a government which they created. But, "government" could create a new identity for every citizen allowing for control of that which government created.

The real intent and of the 14th Amendment was to create a second class citizen even though it was propagandized as a protection of rights. Here you see some of the best work produced by extremely devious legal minds. Is it a conspiracy? Call it what you will.

I think I will call it an elaborate fantasy.

Statutory law is the vehicle by which the current de facto legislators enact their political opinions and call them "law".

Objectivism calls for objective laws, which would clearly include written statutes. Statutes have a long history in our nation. And a statute is neutral, it depends on the content of the laws which makes them moral or not.

The state constitutions I've examined are within the limits of the US Constitution.

Note how every State Constitution has nearly unlimited legislative power "for the general welfare"(whereas the US Constitution's authority is limited to the enumerated powers). This boundless statute-creating power predates the 14th amendment.

[Groovenstein]

Objectivism calls for objective laws, which would clearly include written statutes. Statutes have a long history in our nation. And a statute is neutral, it depends on the content of the laws which makes them moral or not.

Well said, CN. I take the statutory crime over common law crime any day of the week.

Note how every State Constitution has nearly unlimited legislative power "for the general welfare"(whereas the US Constitution's authority is limited to the enumerated powers). This boundless statute-creating power predates the 14th amendment.

And on the federal level, the Commerce Clause (which I'd guess is the single greatest source of federal regulation today) predates the Fourteenth Amendment.

Is there something I'm missing? Is it really being suggested that the text of the Fourteenth Amendment is a major problem? Can someone who thinks they understand it please explain JDX's point to me??

[JMeganSnow]

JDX, a good example of "common" law as you would have it is Antitrust legislation; there is no codification of what this law actually means, only a series of precedents which the court may or may not choose to overturn at any time with impunity.

Unchanging, codified legal statues, no matter HOW strict they are, are much preferable to a morass of ever-changing precedent. They enable men to know ahead of time what is and is not illegal, what punishments they can expect for breaking the law, and thus allows men the freedom of judging what is to their own best interests and acting on that judgement.

Compared to non-codified law, even the worst tyrannies of statutes pale. Nate is entirely correct; it is not statues-as-such that deny individuals their rights, but the content of those statutes. It is, in fact, the institution OF statutory law (as exemplified by the Constitution) that first enabled men to enjoy actual liberty!

And people have to be "subject to" laws. That's what a government of laws IS. If you want an example of what happens when people AREN'T subject to laws, take a look at the looting in New Orleans!

[Captain Nate]

Is there something I'm missing?  Is it really being suggested that the text of the Fourteenth Amendment is a major problem?  Can someone who thinks they understand it please explain JDX's point to me??  

There's a general feeling among many conservatives that the courts, using the fourteenth amendment, have imposed their will on the United States and that the authority of the States (a fundamental attribute of the federal system) has been erroded. To an extent, this is true, but that was not the intent of the law. It was meant to protect the individual rights guarenteed by the national government from abuse by the State governments.

Edited September 11, 2005 by Captain Nate

[Groovenstein]

Thanks, CN. But it seems like JDX's point was that statutes are the problem. The objection you point out (not your objection, I know) would counsel in favor of statutes over common law, wouldn't it?

[Captain Nate]

Groovestein,

Yes, it does suggest more of a reliance on statutes rather than Judicial decree.

One of the most fascinating Justices of the Supreme Court, Justice Black, argued this very point. He believed that the courts should not impose their own views on the 14th amendment's guarantee of Due Process, and should instead incorporate the first 8 Bill of Rights. His argument essentially was: Here we have explicitly guaranteed rights, with 150 years of legal experience based on them, why should the courts be establishing the standards of Due Process based on their own, ever-changing opinions?

As an aside, I find Justice Black's decision on the Court very fascinating. He took every single word of the Constitution into consideration in every decision, never supplanting his personal views on the letter of the law. While I find this view extremely effective in interpreting the Constitution as a document of limited government, he took this same approach to the Bill of Rights. As a result, he did not treat the list as a mere example of some of our rights, but he saw it as exhaustive list of protected rights, barring any proposed amendments. The result was sometimes flawed decision, where he permitted states to restrict the freedom of citizens, such as in the case where he refused to acknowledge a person's right to sell contraceptions, which was against a State law.

That is not to say Justice Black was in favor of such laws, but that he did not believe the court had the power to strike down laws which were not explicitly in violation of the wording of the Constitution (and perhaps he was right). And, in fact, he was quite liberal in deciding to defend individual rights when he believed he legally could.

[Adrian Hester]

[Text of the XIVth Amendment snipped.]

Let's examine some of these words: 

>>All persons<<

"Person" is a legal term meaning "corporate entity".

No, it is a legal term meaning an individual or an organization with legal rights and responsibilities.

Looking at the wording of "statutes" or "code" (not much fun) you'll see "laws" apply to "persons" not human beings. Person even includes business corporations and all the "States" in it's legal meaning.

"Person" is the legal term in the Constitution itself for an individual: "No Person shall be a Representative..." (Article I Section 2), for example. It is distinct from "Citizen," as in the notorious clause: "Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned...according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons." (Article I Section 2.) Incidentally, Supreme Court decisions ruled as early as 1870 (Insurance Co. v. New Orleans) that "person" in the amendment referred only to individuals, not to corporations.

>>born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to<<

"Subject to" is not a term applied to a free man. It is applied to one who is  ruled, in this case, a "person" (corporate entity) under the control of national, state, and local corporate governments.

No, "subject to" (as opposed to "subject of") is applied to free men; it's simply a neutral term referring here to jurisdiction (a point you muddy by cutting apart the whole phrase you quoted: "subject to the jurisdiction thereof"). The reason for including the phrase was to exclude it from applying to such people as children of foreign ambassadors born in the United States, members of Indian tribes, and children of enemies of the United States occupying American land.

>>the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States<<

"United States" referred to here is the federal corporate government. This amendment makes all "persons" born in America US citizens (subjects) not free men.

"Citizen" is the term used in the Constitution itself: "No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States..." (Article I Section 2.) "No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States..." (Article I Section 3.) "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President..." (Article II Section 1.) (The reason for distinguishing between "natural-born citizens" and "citizens of the United States," I gather, was to allow foreign-born citizens like Alexander Hamilton to qualify for the presidency.)

And also note the language of Article III Section 2 on the scope of federal judicial power: "all Cases...between a State and Citizens of another State;--between Citizens of different States;--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects." (So there you see a solid distinction between "citizens" and "subjects" in the Constitution--quite the opposite of your blithely equating the two. If I remember correctly, "citizens" lived in a republic, "subjects" in a monarchy.)

In any case, before the 14th Amerndment, there was, I gather, no uniform criterion for who was a United States citizen and who was not; that was set by the state in which a person was born or by the federal government in the case of naturalized citizens. And in the Dred Scott decision, the Supreme Court declared that blacks could not under any circumstances be made citizens of the United States (they could only be citizens of the state in which they lived), even if their ancestors were free blacks at the time of the adoption of the Constitution. The XIVth Amendment repudiated that.

>>and of the State wherein they reside<<

"Reside" is a legal term stemming from the Latin "res" meaning "thing".

No. It comes from sedere "to sit, be located," and in Latin residere meant "to remain." (The combining form of the word res is re-, as in "reify" and "real"; it's distinct from the prefix re- in "reside.")

It's interesting to note: that prior to this amendment the words "citizen" and "State" were spelled "Citizen" and "state".

Except, for example, in Article III Section 2 above, in which "State," "Citizen," and even "Land" and "Grant" were capitalized. Pretty much all nouns were capitalized in the Constitution.

It's interesting that JDX doesn't discuss the language in the Amendment which is objectionable, "privileges and immunities." (This language was struck down by the Supreme Court in the Slaughter-House Cases in 1873 as threatening to concentrate far too much authority into federal hands.)

[Captain Nate]

Excellent rebuttle, Adrian.

But why do you consider the Privileges and immunities clause objectionable?

[JDX]

Are you deducing intent from the text of the amendment, or from other source?

The text of the amendment was advertised as being enacted to classify former slaves as citizens but that classification was applied to ALL citizens. It made ALL citizens *subject* to all jurisdiction (corporate governments) in which they reside. When "governments" became corporate it became necessary to create "corporate identities" for all citizens to validate the statutes to come.

And, current statutes and code are usually accompnied by definitions of important words contained in those "laws". Those "laws" are all directed to "persons" defined as corporate entitties.

[JDX]

[Text of the XIVth Amendment snipped.]

No, it is a legal term meaning an individual or an organization with legal rights and responsibilities.

Right, a "person" is either an individual or an organization. But, what you fail to comprehend is that both are corporate entities under statutory law.

By your own definition "persons" are accorded "legal rights" which are not really rights, but actually privileges. Government only recognizes those privileges because a "person" (corporation) has no rights. One must deny being a person and only admit to being human in order to claim inalienable rights.

Are you aware that all "governments" in the US are corporate and de facto in nature?

"Person" is the legal term in the Constitution itself for an individual:

So what! The definition of the term "person" prior to the 14th Amendment is irrelevant. The relevant definition appears in statutes. For instance: Motor Vehicle Law book for my state contains a section devoted to definitions listed prior to the statutes.

No, "subject to" (as opposed to "subject of") is applied to free men; it's simply a neutral term referring here to jurisdiction (a point you muddy by cutting apart the whole phrase you quoted:  "subject to the jurisdiction thereof").  The reason for including the phrase was to exclude it from applying to such people as children of foreign ambassadors born in the United States, members of Indian tribes, and children of enemies of the United States occupying American land.

Total nonsense. If you admit to being a US citizen (as describe in the 14th Amendment) you are a "person" subject to a jurisdiction (A power to take cognizance of, and decide causes according to law). Meaning if you violate a "law" (jaywalking to murder) within certain territory, you are liable to face judge and or jury.

"Citizen" is the term used in the Constitution itself:

Same thing here as "person". Citizen meant free man until the 14th Amendment which created a new class of citizen (subject).

It's interesting that JDX doesn't discuss the language in the Amendment which is objectionable, "privileges and immunities."

When the 14th Amendment created a corporate identity for every citizen the basic effect was to exchange the rights of free men for the privileges accorded to "persons". Corporate entities have no inalienable rights.

You seem to willingly accept your second class citizenship, and in so doing. you've waived your rights in favor of privileges which can be extended or withdrawn at any time. I do not.

[Captain Nate]

You seem to willingly accept your second class citizenship, and in so doing. you've waived your rights in favor of privileges which can be extended or withdrawn at any time. I do not.

You speak as though this terminology originated in the 14th amendment. It does not. Article IV, Section II:

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

[JDX]

JDX, a good example of "common" law as you would have it is Antitrust legislation; there is no codification of what this law actually means, only a series of precedents which the court may or may not choose to overturn at any time with impunity.

Government regulating the activities of business corporations is something I can understand and agree with. Business corporations owe their existence to government. and therefore could legitimately be regulated by their creator, government.

My objection is when government presumes all citizens to be corporate entities to bring everyone under legislative control. Do you think humans have a right to own their bodies and determine their own futures, as long as they do not initiate force or harm anyone?

Unchanging, codified legal statues, no matter HOW strict they are, are much preferable to a morass of ever-changing precedent.  They enable men to know ahead of time what is and is not illegal, what punishments they can expect for breaking the law, and thus allows men the freedom of judging what is to their own best interests and acting on that judgement.

How hard is it to know that those activities which cause physical harm to others, except in self defense, are crimes. And, those activities which cause monetary loss to others are also crimes. IOW, initiating force which violates the rights of others is a crime.

Compared to non-codified law, even the worst tyrannies of statutes pale.  Nate is entirely correct; it is not statues-as-such that deny individuals their rights, but the content of those statutes.  It is, in fact, the institution OF statutory law (as exemplified by the Constitution) that first enabled men to enjoy actual liberty!

Megan, your objectivism insights are greatly respected and appreciated, but I must disagree with your opinions of law/government. The US Constitution is a good example of common law. Statutory law allows legislators to impose their will (opinions) on people within their jurisdiction by enacting "laws" which criminalize activities having no victim. Those (statutory) laws are not needed and only serve to increase "government's" authority or possibly further legislators' careers.

And people have to be "subject to" laws.  That's what a government of laws IS.  If you want an example of what happens when people AREN'T subject to laws, take a look at the looting in New Orleans!

Of course people who commit actual crimes, those where someone is physically or monetarily damaged, must be held accountable, and therefore would be subject to laws. Murder, theft, fraud etc. can not be tolerated in a civilized land. But, those "laws" which criminalize such things as *smoking in certain outdoor areas*, *arbitrary curfews*, *drug use*, *prostitution*, *gambling* or any activity having no victim is not within the legitimate purpose of government. That is what I object to.

[JDX]

You speak as though this terminology originated in the 14th amendment. It does not. Article IV, Section II:

State Citizens and federal citizens are dealt with in a completely different context.

State Citizens were recognized as having inalienable rights and were not considered to be corporations liable for regulating. Federal citizens are legally viewed as corporate entities subject to various jurisdictions where their daily lives could be regulated.

[Captain Nate]

State Citizens and federal citizens are dealt with in a completely different context.

State Citizens were recognized as having inalienable rights and were not considered to be corporations liable for regulating. Federal citizens are legally viewed as corporate entities subject to various jurisdictions where their daily lives could be regulated.

As others have asked, you base this on what? Your entire argument seems to be based upon an irrational hatred of the federal government, rather than actual evidence. Your distinctions between State governments and the federal governments, and their respective definitions of citizenship, are entirely arbitrary and essentially baseless.

The Federal government's power is limited when compared to the power of the states to enact statutes, yet they recieve your defense and the federal government is the target of your ire. Now, you'll find I'm quite the proponent of American federalism, and even I cannot comprehend why you are making the claims that you have made in this thread.

Edited September 11, 2005 by Captain Nate

[Adrian Hester]

So what! The definition of the term "person" prior to the 14th Amendment is irrelevant.

No, it is quite relevant. You argue that the XIVth Amendment ushered in a fundamental change in constitutional law, and you claimed that this is shown by the very words of the amendment. I'm simply pointing out that you haven't given any examples where the meanings of the words changed from the Constitution. Constitutional history is not done by free associating like a Freudian.

Total nonsense. If you admit to being a US citizen (as describe in the 14th Amendment) you are a "person" subject to a jurisdiction (A power  to take cognizance of, and decide causes according to law). Meaning if you violate a "law" (jaywalking to murder) within certain territory, you are liable to face judge and or jury.

Yes, and...Are you saying you're opposed to jury trials? To judges deciding legal cases? Why is the term "jurisdiction" so objectionable to you?

Same thing here as "person". Citizen meant free man until the 14th Amendment which created a new class of citizen (subject).

All you've shown is that you are allergic to the word "subject" in any of its uses. You certainly haven't shown that the XIVth Amendment turned "citizens" into "subjects" just because it said that citizens are subject to American jurisdiction. After all, the Constitution itself used the same terminology: "Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law." (Article I Section 3, my italics.)

When the 14th Amendment created a corporate identity for every citizen the basic effect was to exchange the rights of free men for the privileges accorded to "persons". Corporate entities have no inalienable rights.

Ah, but you haven't actually shown that the XIVth Amendment "created a corporate identity for every citizen." (Saying that it's because they were declared subject to American jurisdiction won't cut it.) Perhaps you should explain what you mean by this before the discussion goes any further.

You seem to willingly accept your second class citizenship, and in so doing. you've waived your rights in favor of privileges which can be extended or withdrawn at any time.

You should stick to your day job and skip the mind-reading act--you're an abyssmal failure at it.

[Groovenstein]

Statutory law . . .

I just don't know where to start with this last big post of yours, so I'll just take one point and leave the rest for later. You keep ripping on statutory, statutory, statutory. And yet you say

Of course people who commit actual crimes, those where someone is physically or monetarily damaged, must be held accountable, and therefore would be subject to laws.

This point suggests that you are objecting merely to bad statutes. However, most everything else you've said suggests that bad statutes are the reason you object to statutes per se. Which is correct? Do you think that statutes can sometimes be valid, and thus you only object to bad ones? Or do you think that statutes are never valid? If you think that statutes are never valid, do you have an alternative?

[Adrian Hester]

Government regulating the activities of business corporations is something I can understand and agree with. Business corporations owe their existence to government. and therefore could legitimately be regulated by their creator, government.

No, business corporations owe their existence to the businessmen who founded them. People have a right to associate for trade and they have a right to the property by which they carry this out, and corporate law is devoted to codifying how these rights are to be recognized and protected in law. The fact that governments have established set procedures for incorporation doesn't make corporations the creation of the state any more than set procedures for marriage make marriages creations of the state, nor does it mean that the details of married life can be legitimately regulated by some watchdog government agency.

[Edited to correct the grammar in the last sentence.]

Edited September 12, 2005 by Adrian Hester

[Adrian Hester]

Statutory law allows legislators to impose their will (opinions) on people within their jurisdiction by enacting "laws" which criminalize activities having no victim. Those (statutory) laws are not needed and only serve to increase "government's" authority or possibly further legislators' careers.

The existence of bad statutory law doesn't invalidate statutory law as such any more than judges' bad decisions invalidate case law (or common law).

Of course people who commit actual crimes, those where someone is physically or monetarily damaged, must be held accountable, and therefore would be subject to laws.

But then that would make them subjects and not citizens, right? Why do you object to the term "subject to [a given] jurisdiction" but not "subject to laws"?

[Adrian Hester]

The text of the amendment was advertised as being enacted to classify former slaves as citizens but that classification was applied to ALL citizens. It made ALL citizens *subject* to all jurisdiction (corporate governments) in which they reside. When "governments" became corporate it became necessary to create "corporate identities" for all citizens to validate the statutes to come.

What do you mean by "when 'governments' became corporate"? What is a non-corporate government? What do you understand the term "jurisdiction" to mean?

[Adrian Hester]

But why do you consider the Privileges and immunities clause objectionable?

I'll quote the relevant sections of the Slaughter-House Cases (1873):

Section 2: "The Parliament of Great Britain and the State legislatures of this country have always exercised the power of granting exclusive rights when they were necessary and proper to effectuate a purpose which had in view the public good, and the power here exercised is of that class, and has, until now, never been denied."

"Exclusive rights" (the first section uses the phrase "exclusive right or privilege," which is a distinct matter from "privileges and immunities" in constitutional law; see the last paragraph, below) include such things as state-supported monopolies. The "privileges and immunities" clause in the XIVth Amendment seems in part to have been intended to extend federal authority over the states in this respect, and thus would have led to a massive centralisation of government in the federal level and probably would have opened up much of the economy to federal intervention. (There's a good summary of this here.) The Court decided that the XIVth Amendment protected only the privileges and immunities belonging to national citizenship, not state citizenship, which made the clause redundant.

The decision is also well worth reading because it gives a good idea of what "privileges and immunities" meant in law at the time:

3. ...The second clause protects from the hostile legislation of the States the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, as distinguished from the privileges and immunities of citizens of the States.

These latter, as defined by Justice Washington in Corfield v. Coryell, and by this court in Ward v. Maryland, embrace generally those fundamental civil rights for the security and establishment of which organized society is instituted, and they remain, with certain exceptions mentioned in the Federal Constitution, under the care of the State governments, and of this class are those set up by plaintiffs.

4. The privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States are those which arise out of the nature and essential character of the national government, the provisions of its Constitution, or its laws and treaties made in pursuance thereof, and it is these which are placed under the protection of Congress by this clause of the Thirteenth amendment.

Basically, in constitutional law, I gather, "privileges and immunities" refers specifically to the fundamental rights secured by a constitution, and is understood to be quite different from privilege or immunity referring to specially granted legal exemptions which can be revoked by later laws. It's wrong then to take the phrase as used in the XIVth Amendment as replacing inalienable rights by changeable legal fictions; however, the intent of the clause would seem to have been to extend the meaning of the phrase rather dangerously and to have run together "privilege" in the usual sense and in the distinct constitutional sense. (Mind you, I'm not a lawyer or legal historian, so I might be missing other important points.)