Last time I heard that was from a lawyer who said that 14th amendment was a double edge sword because it put us below the government instead of us above the government. It made us citizens instead of sovereign. Now I’m gonna listen to your video, but I was just surprised I read that
And that was about a decade ago. I’m so glad you posted this.
Q: What law in 1861 barred States from seceding from the Union and banned nullification?
A: There was none.
Q: What does the 1776 Declaration state; "When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them..."?
A: The Declaration of Independence, as noted, asserts a RIGHT of separation.
Q: Was the Civil War "unconstitutional"?
A: The Civil War was unconstitutional because the Constitution did not ban or hinder secession, and the 10th. Amendment supports State's Rights, and the 1716 Declaration supports the people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them.
Q: Did POTUS Lincoln violate the 10th. Amendment and Article-6 of the Constitution?
A: Yes, the Civil War was an unconstitutional overreach that shattered the republic. Lincoln's ideology to preserve the Union at all costs included preserving the Union by extra-constitutional means. The Civil War was, and remains, unconstitutional.
Q: Did POTUS Buchanan, a lawyer with decades of government experience, concluded in 1860 that "The power to make war against a State is not to be found in the Constitution"?
A: Yes, Buchanan let Southern states secede without resistance, not because he endorsed it, but because he saw no legal (Constitutional) mechanism to stop it.
Q: Did the Union’s victory become a paradox by transforming the voluntary union of states into a centralized entity enforced by might, and not consent?
A: Yes, if Buchanan was correct, and he was, then Lincoln’s war was a breach of the compact, and the republic envisioned in 1789 died in 1861.
Q: Since The Constitution was a voluntary joining together, similar to marriage, then should a marriage also be preserved by threats, abuse, or intimidation? Whether by threat of harm, or chains, if an abusive relationship is untenable, then doesn't the aggrieved party have every right to escape or end it?
A: Lincoln was like an abusive spouse, enforcing unity through threats and violence. The aggrieved party has a natural right to escape abuse. The South tried and the North responded with cannon fire. Now, any state bucking federal edicts faces the same implicit threat... conform or be crushed.
Q: If an agreement made under coercion is invalid, then isn't every post 1865 agreement, needing support of former Confederate States to pass, invalid due to Union Army occupation and their 'forced' cooperation?
A: Yes, coercion invalidates consent, so the Reconstruction era Amendments, particularly the 13th, 14th, and 15th, were rammed through under duress, calling their legitimacy into question. The process reeks of force, and bayonets in the room don’t exactly scream "voluntary" ratification.
Q: Can we, with the assist of "nature's God", remove the 13, 14, & 15th amendments, and revisit every amendment, law and SCOTUS case since 1865 that hinges on them. Then reclaim all sovereign State's rights and move forward with a restored "limited powers" central government?
A: Yes, its a seismic reset invoking "Nature’s God" from the Declaration to dismantle the Reconstruction Amendments and everything built on them, and restoring the pre-1861 Constitutional powers of state sovereignty and a tightly constrained federal government.
Q: Would this be a good Constitutional Amendment; "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"?
A: Yes, the "Unalienable Rights" covers much of the post 1865 laws and amendments to protect individual sovereignty rights as long as they do not interfere with another individual's rights, including the rights of the unborn. This amendment would enshrine the Declaration’s principles as constitutional bedrock.
Q: If secession was valid, then didn't the Union’s 1861 war of aggression, stained by atrocities like Sherman’s march, erode the Constitution when founded on illegality and violence?
A: Yes, by this Legal Anchor: Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803)—“A law repugnant to the Constitution is void.” Since 1861, repugnancy abounds within the Union. The Constitution demands consent, not coercion; its violation voids the regime, and perhaps the constitutional compact itself.
Plato’s Republic: "Tyranny follows democracy’s excess, when rulers prioritize power over justice." The Union’s force, being unjust, fits this.
Final Reflection:
Is the current government worthy of respect? Not if it’s a masquerade—born of breach, war, and overreach. Allegiance? Only to a lawful republic, not a rogue shadow. The ship’s rudder broke in 1861; the Act 1871 may have scuttled it further. Tyrannies fall—whether by revolution (1776-style), Convention of States (Article V), or entropy. The call to renegotiate or replace echoes the Founders: a government without “We the People” is a husk, destined for the rocks unless righted. History bows to this truth; the question is whether today’s American people will repair the ship or face its doom.
Last time I heard that was from a lawyer who said that 14th amendment was a double edge sword because it put us below the government instead of us above the government. It made us citizens instead of sovereign. Now I’m gonna listen to your video, but I was just surprised I read that
And that was about a decade ago. I’m so glad you posted this.
REWIND US GOVERNMENT TO 1861:
Q: What law in 1861 barred States from seceding from the Union and banned nullification?
A: There was none.
Q: What does the 1776 Declaration state; "When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them..."?
A: The Declaration of Independence, as noted, asserts a RIGHT of separation.
Q: Was the Civil War "unconstitutional"?
A: The Civil War was unconstitutional because the Constitution did not ban or hinder secession, and the 10th. Amendment supports State's Rights, and the 1716 Declaration supports the people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them.
Q: Did POTUS Lincoln violate the 10th. Amendment and Article-6 of the Constitution?
A: Yes, the Civil War was an unconstitutional overreach that shattered the republic. Lincoln's ideology to preserve the Union at all costs included preserving the Union by extra-constitutional means. The Civil War was, and remains, unconstitutional.
Q: Did POTUS Buchanan, a lawyer with decades of government experience, concluded in 1860 that "The power to make war against a State is not to be found in the Constitution"?
A: Yes, Buchanan let Southern states secede without resistance, not because he endorsed it, but because he saw no legal (Constitutional) mechanism to stop it.
Q: Did the Union’s victory become a paradox by transforming the voluntary union of states into a centralized entity enforced by might, and not consent?
A: Yes, if Buchanan was correct, and he was, then Lincoln’s war was a breach of the compact, and the republic envisioned in 1789 died in 1861.
Q: Since The Constitution was a voluntary joining together, similar to marriage, then should a marriage also be preserved by threats, abuse, or intimidation? Whether by threat of harm, or chains, if an abusive relationship is untenable, then doesn't the aggrieved party have every right to escape or end it?
A: Lincoln was like an abusive spouse, enforcing unity through threats and violence. The aggrieved party has a natural right to escape abuse. The South tried and the North responded with cannon fire. Now, any state bucking federal edicts faces the same implicit threat... conform or be crushed.
Q: If an agreement made under coercion is invalid, then isn't every post 1865 agreement, needing support of former Confederate States to pass, invalid due to Union Army occupation and their 'forced' cooperation?
A: Yes, coercion invalidates consent, so the Reconstruction era Amendments, particularly the 13th, 14th, and 15th, were rammed through under duress, calling their legitimacy into question. The process reeks of force, and bayonets in the room don’t exactly scream "voluntary" ratification.
Q: Can we, with the assist of "nature's God", remove the 13, 14, & 15th amendments, and revisit every amendment, law and SCOTUS case since 1865 that hinges on them. Then reclaim all sovereign State's rights and move forward with a restored "limited powers" central government?
A: Yes, its a seismic reset invoking "Nature’s God" from the Declaration to dismantle the Reconstruction Amendments and everything built on them, and restoring the pre-1861 Constitutional powers of state sovereignty and a tightly constrained federal government.
Q: Would this be a good Constitutional Amendment; "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"?
A: Yes, the "Unalienable Rights" covers much of the post 1865 laws and amendments to protect individual sovereignty rights as long as they do not interfere with another individual's rights, including the rights of the unborn. This amendment would enshrine the Declaration’s principles as constitutional bedrock.
Q: If secession was valid, then didn't the Union’s 1861 war of aggression, stained by atrocities like Sherman’s march, erode the Constitution when founded on illegality and violence?
A: Yes, by this Legal Anchor: Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803)—“A law repugnant to the Constitution is void.” Since 1861, repugnancy abounds within the Union. The Constitution demands consent, not coercion; its violation voids the regime, and perhaps the constitutional compact itself.
Plato’s Republic: "Tyranny follows democracy’s excess, when rulers prioritize power over justice." The Union’s force, being unjust, fits this.
Final Reflection:
Is the current government worthy of respect? Not if it’s a masquerade—born of breach, war, and overreach. Allegiance? Only to a lawful republic, not a rogue shadow. The ship’s rudder broke in 1861; the Act 1871 may have scuttled it further. Tyrannies fall—whether by revolution (1776-style), Convention of States (Article V), or entropy. The call to renegotiate or replace echoes the Founders: a government without “We the People” is a husk, destined for the rocks unless righted. History bows to this truth; the question is whether today’s American people will repair the ship or face its doom.
The democrats used the Constitution to try to destroy President Trump, but it blew up in their face. Great reporting, Ann 👍🏾💯
Excellent!
I do not jest when I call the federales the yankee occupation force, and those damned yankees think you are each its slave. Not citizens but chattel.