14TH AMENDMENT SEC 2 & 3 ANNOTATED - Valley News Live

[Pages:17]3:16-cv-93 Plaintiff's Page 1 of 17 Exhibit 20

14TH AMENDMENT SEC 2 & 3 ANNOTATED

AMENDMENT XIV: Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868.

Section 2.

Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and VicePresident of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age,* and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

E20-klo-IA-1: I argue, for emphasis on "except for participation in rebellion, or other crime" as I have already argued, and shown that the actions of the congresspersons who voted for the ACA, the president who signed it, and those who continue to support the ACA are criminally felonious; these actions being criminal felonies comply with the DOJ's own website definition; and I have just show in Exhibit 19 ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY NON-APPLICABILITY, that absolute immunity does not apply to them for my case thus this section with emphasis should apply because if they can't vote in elections they shouldn't be able to cast votes in Congress, and with additional emphasis on "participation in rebellion" the next section of our 14TH Amendment to our Constitution should apply with the strongest force for application and remedy for Irreparable Injury and Punitive or Exemplary Damages in my case.

Section 3.

"No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and VicePresident, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability."

E20-klo-IA-2: I argue, for Emphasis on: "No person", "having previously taken an oath", "to support the Constitution of the United States", "shall have engaged in" "insurrection", or "rebellion", one may argue the "shall have engaged in" as past tense considering the time of this Amendment around the Civil War, however, from the Free Dictionary By Farlex, http: // shall, the sentence "You shall have your money" expresses a

3:16-cv-93 Plaintiff's Page 2 of 17 Exhibit 20

promise of future events, so it is reasonable to consider here, that to be a member and remain a member of any of the branches of government at any level in the United States of America, one must not have engaged or engage in insurrection or rebellion against our Declaration of Independence, our Constitution, our Bill of Rights, our Supreme Law of the Land! See definitions of emphasized words et al and additional arguments below and elsewhere in my documents.

Insurrection: What is INSURRECTION? A rebellion, or rising of citizens or subjects in resistance to their government. See INSURGENT. Insurrection shall consist in any combined resistance to the lawful authority of the state, with intent to the denial thereof, when the same is manifested, or intended to be manifested, by acts of violence. Code Ga. 1882, Law Dictionary: What is INSURRECTION? definition of INSURRECTION (Black's Law Dictionary)

E20-klo-IA-3: I argue, that the Congresspersons that voted for the ACA, the President who signed the ACA, and those who continue to support the ACA are in fact conducting an insurrection, a rebellion, against our Declaration of Independence, our Constitution, our Bill of Rights, our Supreme Law of the Land by crafting legislation with an overreach of powers that violates our Guaranteed Legal Protections as citizens; the separations of powers; and their responsibility to the non-delegation doctrine by abdicating their power of statute construction to the Judiciary, which then forces the Judicial Powers into ambiguity.

Rebellion: What is REBELLION? Deliberate, organized resistance, by force and arms, to the laws or operations of the government, committed by a subject See Hubbard v. Harnden Exp. Co., 10 R. I. 247; State v. McDonald, 4 Port. (Ala.) 455; Crashley v. Press Pub. Co., 74 App. Div. 118, 77 N. Y. Supp. 711. In old English law, the term "rebellion" was also applied to contempt of a court man- ifested by disobedience to its process, particularly of the court of chancery. If a de- fendant refused to appear, after attachment and proclamation, a "commission of rebellion" issued against him. 3 Bl. Comm. 444. Law Dictionary: What is REBELLION? definition of REBELLION (Black's Law Dictionary)

By force and arms: What is VI ET ARMIS? Lat. With force and arms. See TRESPASS. Law Dictionary: What is VI ET ARMIS? definition of VI ET ARMIS (Black's Law Dictionary) [See "Strong Hand" below:] whereas the words vi et armis ("with force and arms") are mere formal words in the action of trespass]

Trespass: What is TRESPASS? Any misfeasance or act of one man whereby another is injuriously treated or damnified. 3 Bl. Comm. 208. An injury or misfeasance to the person, property, or rights of another person, done with force and violence, either actual or implied in law. See Grunson v. State, 89 Ind. 530, 46 Am. Rep. 178; Southern Ity. Co. v. Harden, 101 Ga. 203, 28 S. E. 847; Blood v. Kemp, 4 Pick. (Mass.) 173; Toledo, etc., R. Co. v. McLaughlin, 03 111. 391; Agnew v. Jones, 74 Miss. 347, 23 South. 25; Hill v. Kimball. 70 Tex. 210, 13 S. W. 59, 7 L. R. A. 618. In the

3:16-cv-93 Plaintiff's Page 3 of 17 Exhibit 20

strictest sense, an entry on another's ground, without a lawful authority, and doing some damage, however inconsiderable, to his real property. 3 Bl. Comm. 209. Trespass, in its most comprehensive sense, signifies any transgression or offense against the law of nature, of society, or of the country in which we live; and this, whether it relates to a man's person or to his property. In its more limited and ordinary sense, it signifies an injury committed with violence, and this violence may be either actual or implied; and the law will imply violence though none is actually used, when the injury is of a direct and immediate kind, and committed on the person or tangible and corporeal property of the plaintiff. Of actual violence, an assault and battery is an instance; of implied, a peaceable but wrongful entry upon a person's land. Brown. In practice. A form of action, at the common law, which lies for redress in the shape of money damages for any unlawful injury done to the plaintiff, in respect either to his person, property, or rights, by the immediate force and violence of the defendant. Law Dictionary: What is TRESPASS? definition of TRESPASS (Black's Law Dictionary)

E20-klo-IA-4: I argue, that "rebellion" and "trespass" interlock with "insurrection" as used in E20-klo-IA-3, and those responsible for the passing, signing, and defense of the ACA have trespassed against our Supreme Law of the Land and my Guaranteed Protected Rights as a citizen of our United States of America, and they have used immediate force and violence by making me pay for my transgressions, sins, against their acceptable religions with the islamic zakat tax, AKA "`shared responsibility payment.'".

Misfeasance, strictly, is not doing a lawful act in a proper manner, omitting to do it as it should be done; while malfeasance is the doing an act wholly wrongful; and non- feasance is an omission to perform a duty, or a total neglect of duty. But "misfeasance is often carelessly used in the sense of "malfeasance." Coite v. Lynes, 33 Conn. 109. Law Dictionary: What is MISFEASANCE? definition of MISFEASANCE (Black's Law Dictionary)

E20-klo-IA-5: I argue, that the religious exemption language of the ACA and secondarily the Social Security Act do raise a standard equivalent to "misfeasance" at a minimum by violating my Guaranteed Constitutional Protections under the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause, and the Limited Powers of the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial Branches, Judicial included here because of stare decisis on obama care.

Injuriously, causing or likely to cause damage or harm. synonyms: harmful, damaging, deleterious, detrimental, hurtful, baleful;

E20-klo-IA-6: I argue, that the "pains and penalties" of the ACA, and the Social Security Act result in me, and others seeking to practice their religious beliefs, when they don't comply with the religious exemption of these Acts, to be injuriously treated.

Damnified, To cause damage or injurious loss to a person or put him in a position where he must sustain it. A surety is "damnified" when a judgment has been obtained against him. McDean v.

3:16-cv-93 Plaintiff's Page 4 of 17 Exhibit 20

Bank, 16 Fed. Cas. 27S.Law Dictionary: What is DAMNIFY? definition of DAMNIFY (Black's Law Dictionary)

E20-klo-IA-7: I argue, that the fines, and loss of Social Security Act benefits of the ACA result in me, and others seeking to practice their religious beliefs, when they don't comply with the religious exemption of the ACA, to also be damnified.

What is MALFEASANCE? The wrongful or unjust doing of some act which the doer has no right to perform, or which he has stipulated by contract not to do. It differs from "mis- feasance" and "non-feasance," (which titles see.) See 1 Chit. Pr. 9; 1 Chit. PI. 134; Dudley v. Flemingsburg, 115 Ky. 5, 72 S. W. 327, 00 L. R. A. 575, 103 Am. St. Rep. 253; Coite v. Lynes, 33 Conn. 115; Bell v. Josse- lyn, 3 Gray (Mass.) 311, 63 Am. Dec. 741. Law Dictionary: What is MALFEASANCE? definition of MALFEASANCE (Black's Law Dictionary)

E20-klo-IA-8: I argue, that the Congresspersons that voted for the ACA, the President who signed the ACA, and those who continue to support the ACA are acting with "malfeasance" because they are stipulated by oath to uphold and protect me and We the People and our Supreme Law of the Land and they are not.

What is NONFEASANCE? The neglect or failure of a person to do some act which he ought to do. The term is not generally used to denote a breach of contract, but rather the failure to perform a duty towards the public whereby some individual sustains special damage, as where a sheriff fails to execute a writ. Sweet. See Coite v. Lines. 33 Conn. 115; Gregor v. Cady, 82 Me. 131, 19 Atl. 108. 17 Am. St. Rep. 406; Carr v. Kansas City (C. C.) 87 Fed. 1; Minkler v. State. 14 Neb. 1S1, 15 X. W. 330; Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Foulks. 191 111. 57, 60 X. E. 890. Law Dictionary: What is NONFEASANCE? definition of NONFEASANCE (Black's Law Dictionary)

E20-klo-IA-9: I argue, that the actions of the Congresspersons that voted for the ACA, the President who signed the ACA, and those who continue to support the ACA go far beyond "nonfeasance" because they are stipulated by oath to uphold and protect me, and We the People and our Supreme Law of the Land and they are not: "ignorantia legis non excusat", ignorance of their oath, our Declaration of Independence, our Constitution, and our Bill of Rights can be no excuse.

What is IGNORANTIA LEGIS NON EXCUSAT? a Latin phrase meaning that the ignorance of the law is not an excuse. Law Dictionary: What is IGNORANTIA LEGIS NON EXCUSAT? definition of IGNORANTIA LEGIS NON EXCUSAT (Black's Law Dictionary)

What is STRONG HAND?: (Related to by force and arms) The words "with strong hand" imply a degree of criminal force, whereas the words vi et armis ("with force and arms") are mere formal words in the action of trespass, and the plaintiff is not bound to prove any force. The statutes relating to forcible entries use the words "with a strong hand'' as describing that degree of force

3:16-cv-93 Plaintiff's Page 5 of 17 Exhibit 20

which makes an entry or detainer of lands criminal. Brown. Law Dictionary: What is STRONG HAND? definition of STRONG HAND (Black's Law Dictionary)

E20-klo-IA-10: I argue, that the Congresspersons who voted for the ACA, the President who signed the ACA, and those in our Federal Government who continue to support it have engaged in "strong hand" tactics by applying "pains and penalties" when you don't bow to their religion or at a minimum to the their definition of exempt religions and religious tenets. And as argued in other documents the ACA in this regard has reached a level of "a bill of attainder"!

E20-klo-IA-11: I argue, that "The words "with strong hand" imply a degree of criminal force" and strong hand actions against a person relative to our Supreme Law of the Land are criminal as indicated on the Department of Justice Website, "Criminal: Contact your local FBI field office to report incidents of: Excessive force or other Constitutional violations by persons acting as law enforcement officials or public officials [public officials include the Congress, and the President per the IRS definitions of public officials]; Force, threats, or physical obstruction to interfere with access to reproductive health care services [Protection for abortion clinics note the change in language of Roe v. Wade and its stronger applicability to my case than to abortion]; Force or threats to interfere with the exercise of religious beliefs and destruction, defacing, or damage of religious property", and the reasoning behind the filing of the Criminal Complaint as noted in the Federal Question Complaint for this case, and as argued supra.

Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971) Mr. Justice Brennan delivered the opinion of the Court: "An agent acting -- albeit unconstitutionally -- in the name of the United States possesses a far greater capacity for harm than an individual trespasser exercising no authority other than his own."

E20-klo-IA-12: I argue, that the Congresspersons who voted for the ACA, the President who signed the ACA, and those in our Federal Government who continue to support it possess even a far greater capacity for harm, for they are the Most High ones who make laws, and the Most High ones who enforce the laws and sit far above those field agents in Bivens, and they are the Most High ones that are stipulated by oath to uphold and protect me, and we the people and our Supreme Law of the Land and they are not.

... "The mere invocation of federal power by a federal law enforcement official will normally render futile any attempt to resist an unlawful entry or arrest by resort to the local police; and a claim of authority to enter is likely to unlock the door as well. In such cases, there is no safety for the citizen, (Page 403 U. S. 395) except in the protection of the judicial tribunals, for rights which have been invaded by the officers of the government, professing to act in its name.

E20-klo-IA-13: I argue, that this is precisely why I so urgently seek "the protection of the judicial tribunals", for the Congresspersons who voted for the ACA, the President who signed the ACA,

3:16-cv-93 Plaintiff's Page 6 of 17 Exhibit 20

and those in our Federal Government who continue to support it have made unlawful entry into my right to privacy and autonomy as previously argued.

"There remains to him but the alternative of resistance, which may amount to crime."

E20-klo-IA-14: I argue, that Resistance is Granted and Guaranteed to me by the Declaration of Independence, "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." and "But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--", though as a law abiding citizen this must be the means of absolute last resort, and this burden cannot be on the shoulders of just one citizen, to effect this Resistance we must once again move as "We the People of these United States of America"! One may wonder about the possibility of this in this day and age, but one only need consider the inactions and impotence, of president obama against our sworn enemies, Fundamental Islamic Sunni Sharia Coders et al, and the rise of Trumpism over Republicans & Democrats, which I like to affectionately call "demo-rats" for their subversive destruction of our Supreme Law of the Land. President Obama and all his support for islam and their rights for freedom of religion, in his own words, his book, "AUDACITY of HOPE ..." and Videos: , and additionally from his book, "The Audacity of Hope, Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream" page 261 end of second paragraph, "... and I will stand with them should the political winds shift in an ugly direction", he has shifted the winds for them, even when they're not citizens; not calling out the "Fundamental Islamic Sunni Sharia Coders and Warriors"; driving a nuclear deal with the Islamic Republic of Iran; and rejecting my petition to him for a redress of grievances, and here I thought the President was to uphold our Supreme Law of the Land for all Americans?

What is TREASON?: Constitution Article III Section. 3.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

See also: 18 USC 2381: Treason; 2382: Misprision of treason; 2383: Rebellion or insurrection; 2384: Seditious conspiracy;

LEVYING WAR, crim. law. The assembling of a body of men for the purpose of effecting by force a treasonable object; and all who perform any part however minute, or however remote from the scene of action, and who are leagued in the general conspiracy, are considered as engaged in levying war, within the meaning of the constitution. 4 Cranch R. 473-4; Const. art. 3, s. 3. Vide Treason; Fries' Trial; Pamphl. This is a technical term, borrowed from the English law, and

3:16-cv-93 Plaintiff's Page 7 of 17 Exhibit 20

its meaning is the same as it is when used in stat. 25 Ed. III.; 4 Cranch's R. 471; U. S. v. Fries, Pamphl. 167; Hall's Am. Law Jo. 351; Burr's Trial; 1 East, P. C. 62 to 77; Alis. Cr. Law of Scotl. 606; 9 C. & P. 129. A Law Dictionary, Adapted to the Constitution and Laws of the United States. By John Bouvier. Published 1856.

Related to treasonable: traitorous See: faithless, false, perfidious, recreant, untrue ? Burton's Legal Thesaurus, 4E. Copyright ? 2007 by William C. Burton. Used with permission of The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.

Perfidious: adjective base, cheating, conniving, corrupt, deceitful, deceiving, designing, dishonest, dishonorable, disloyal, disobedient, dissembling, double-dealing, faithless, false, falsehearted, fraudulent, guileful, hypocritical, inconstant, insidious, knavish, lying, perfidus, perjured, plotting, scheming, shifty, slippery, sneaking, sneaky, treacherous, treasonable, treasonous, tricky, unconscionable, undependable, unfaithful, unreliable, unscrupulous, untrue, untrustworthy, untruthful, without honor; See also: bad, collusive, contemptible, corrupt, dishonest, disingenuous, disobedient, evasive, faithless, false, felonious, fraudulent, insidious, irresponsible, lying, machiavellian, malevolent, mendacious, offensive, outrageous, recreant, tortuous, undependable, unreliable, unscrupulous, untrue, untrustworthy

Burton's Legal Thesaurus, 4E. Copyright ? 2007 by William C. Burton. Used with permission of The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.

Machiavellian: adjective arch, artful, base, cagey, calculating, canny, cheating, clever, collusive, collusory, conniving, conscienceless, contriving, corrupt, covinous, crafty, crooked, cunning, deceitful, deceiving, deceptive, delusive, designing, devious, dirty, dishonest, dishonorable, double-crossing, double-dealing, double-tongued, evasive, faithless, falsehearted, feline, foxy, fraudulent, guileful, hypocritical, ignoble, immoral, infamous, insidious, insincere, intriguing, knavish, mean, misdealing, opportunist, perfidious, plotting, rascally, roguish, scheming, shady, shameless, sharp, shifty, shrewd, slick, slippery, sly, smooth, sneaking, sneaky, stealthy, subdolous, tortuous, treacherous, trickish, tricky, two-faced, undependable, underhand, unethical, unprincipled, unscrupulous, untruthful, venal, vile, vulpine, wily

Burton's Legal Thesaurus, 4E. Copyright ? 2007 by William C. Burton. Used with permission of The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.

E20-klo-IA-15: I argue, that publication of a book and claiming copyrights to it is equivalent to "Confession in open Court".

E20-klo-IA-16: I argue, that the 14TH Amendment modified this Article and Section as to absoluteness of the last sentence of Constitution Article III Section. 3, and I will provide a list of items for Judicial consideration.

E20-klo-IA-17: I wonder, will this Judiciary protect my, and others Constitutional Rights for Freedom of Religion, as Vigorously and Continuously as they have abortion rights for reckless

3:16-cv-93 Plaintiff's Page 8 of 17 Exhibit 20

citizens? Why Reckless: Reckless, without thinking or caring about the consequences of an action: unprotected sex!

E20-klo-IA-18: I ask the Judiciary for the following like consideration that was used in the opening comments of Roe v. Wade with substitutions indicated: "We forthwith acknowledge our awareness of the sensitive and emotional nature of the "religion" abortion controversy, of the vigorous opposing views, even among "religions, sects of religions, clergy of sects, members of sects, and scientists et al" physicians, and of the deep and seemingly absolute convictions that the subject inspires. One's philosophy, one's experiences, one's exposure to the raw edges of human existence, one's religious training, one's attitudes toward life and family and their values, and the moral standards one establishes and seeks to observe, are all likely to influence and to color one's thinking and conclusions about "religion" abortion."

E20-klo-IA-19: I argue, that the protection of religious rights in our United States of America should be more sound and on a stronger foundation than abortion rights. I have read the court's decision in Roe v. Wade, and in the 1970s the "quickening" of the fetus was of paramount consideration. I would argue that today with our advancements in medical technology, and understanding DNA and the genome that the "quickening" begins at conception, for a man's quickening sperm can be inserted into a woman's living ovum in a petri dish, and the zygote's quickening growth observed by us for two to six days. I have found no such "quickening" requirement for determining religious rights, almost all religions have a ceremony for when life ends, before and after the "quickening", however, I have found a scientific argument that GOD does exist, see my work, "NATURE'S MEND for the Universe ..." pages 354-358 et al.

E20-klo-IA-20: I further argue, that the Congresspersons who voted for the ACA, the President who signed the ACA, and those in our Federal Government who continue to support it have "given aid and comfort to our enemies" of our Constitution, you may balk at this, but please grant me some leave to surplusage it into context, using a SCOTUS case from 2015.

14.1. E20-klo-IA-21: I ask for this leave, considering the Supreme Courts arguments in deciding in favor of the ACA in No. 14?114, DAVID KING, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. SYLVIA BURWELL, ET AL., 25-Jun-2015 Chief Justice Roberts delivering the opinion of the Court: "But "our preference for avoiding surplusage constructions is not absolute." Lamie v. United States Trustee, 540 U. S. 526, 536 (2004); see also Marx v. General Revenue Corp., 568 U. S. ___, ___ (2013) (slip op., at 13) ("The canon against surplusage is not an absolute rule"). And specifically with respect to this Act, rigorous application of the canon does not seem a particularly useful guide to a fair construction of the statute.", and don't you know it, we are dealing with the same Statute in my case, the ACA.

 ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download