14TH AMENDMENT SEC 1 & 4 ANNOTATED

3:16-cv-93 Plaintiff's Page 1 of 8 Exhibit 15

14TH AMENDMENT SEC 1 & 4 ANNOTATED

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

Note: Article I, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by section 2 of the 14th amendment.

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.

E15-klo-IA-1: As I understand it, this was an amendment for extension of Federal protections for citizens under Amendment V of our Constitution to afford those same protections to citizens under State governance, both amendments are applicable to my case because the ACA and the Social Security Act are Federal Statutes that infringe on my Constitutionally Protected Liberties and Rights, and this amendment has been used to expand the Liberties and Rights of Privacy, and Personal Autonomy to citizens at both the state and federal level.

E15-klo-IA-2: The expansion of my understanding of our Supreme Law of the Land; those under it; those fighting against it; and SCOTUS rulings related to it has been profound (extending to a great depth of my mind), See below and Expansion of The 14 TH Amendment by SCOTUS for the Right to Privacy & Personal Autonomy after Section 5.

Section 2. Detailed and argued under a separate Exhibit 20.

Section 3. Detailed and argued under a separate Exhibit 20.

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

E15-klo-IA-3: I argue, that the public debt of the United States as authorized by the Social Security Act shall not be questioned, and stare decisis stands with me for my case! Also see Exhibit 17 Compensatory Damages & Constitutionality Of The ACA And SSA and other documents for my case.

Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 (1963); Religious Practice vs Benefits; Mr. Justice Brennan delivered the opinion of the Court:

3:16-cv-93 Plaintiff's Page 2 of 8 Exhibit 15

"We turn first to the question whether the disqualification for benefits imposes any burden on the free exercise of appellant's religion. We think it is clear that it does."

E15-klo-IA-4: I argue, as it imposes a burden in that case it also imposes a burden in my case, and the ACA further extends that burden with "pains and penalties" of an extra tax and/or denying me my Social Security Benefits if I exercise my religious beliefs and practices, and thus this Judiciary should lift those burdens from me, and others by awarding all the relief I seek in my Case.

"In a sense, the consequences of such a disqualification to religious principles and practices may be only an indirect result of welfare legislation within the State's general competence to enact; it is true that no criminal sanctions directly compel appellant to work a six-day week. But this is only the beginning, not the end, of our inquiry."

E15-klo-IA-5: I concede that the impacts on my Free Exercise of religious beliefs and practices appear to be indirect in the ACA, but that is not the end in this case, and not the end in my case, it is only the beginning." See Exhibit 20 14th Amendment Sec 2 & 3 Annotated.

E15-klo-IA-6: I argue, once again, as many have, starting with the Social Security Act and now expanding to the ACA, which has extend unconstitutional powers even further, that the Legislative, and Executive Branches have exceeded their constitutional powers to enact statutes of General Welfare, as so noted in this case those powers belong to the state, "welfare legislation within the State's general competence to enact".

E15-klo-IA-7: I argue, that "general Welfare of the United States" as part of the powers of congress to " "lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States." U. S. Const., Art. I, ?8, cl. 1." does not encompass, "the specific Welfare of the States or the individual Citizens of each State of the United States", for "general Welfare of the United States" is inextricably linked to (incapable of being disentangled, undone, or loosed from) "the common Defense of the United States" and the federal government limits. As Chief Justice Roberts is so enamored with arguing words, and phrases, and meaning to protect legislation over we the people, Justice Scalia called in jiggery-pokery, let him now argue that the powers exercised by the other two branches of federal government to enact the ACA, the Social Security Act, et al are beyond the limits of powers for "the common Defense of the United States" as in the Posse Comitatus Act or even the National Defense Authorization Act et al. Or will he argue that the Founding Fathers left out a comma where a comma was intended to divide the limits, being more restrictive for the "the common Defense of the United States" and less restrictive for the "general Welfare of the United States". Has SCOTUS not ruled over and over that the Founding Fathers were smart men of common sense and the meaning of what they said then, has the same meaning today? Will Chief Justice Roberts also tread on "A well regulated Militia, being

3:16-cv-93 Plaintiff's Page 3 of 8 Exhibit 15

necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." to protect those in the Federal Government, their overreach of power, and their Acts and actions?

"Nor may the South Carolina court's construction of the statute be saved from constitutional infirmity on the ground that unemployment compensation benefits are not appellant's "right," but merely a "privilege." "

E15-klo-IA-8: I argue, nor may any court's construction of the ACA and the Social Security Act save it from constitutional infirmity for indirect and direct violations of my, and others, the nones, Free Exercise of religious beliefs and practices, for it goes beyond the Constitutional Powers of the Judiciary to construct legislation at either the State or Federal level.

E15-klo-IA-9: I further argue, that the ACA and the Social Security Act cannot be saved from constitutional infirmity on the grounds that my Social Security Benefits are only a privilege not a right as stated above and argued at length in Exhibit 17 Compensatory Damages & Constitutionality Of The ACA And SSA.

"The door of the Free Exercise Clause stands tightly closed against any governmental regulation of religious beliefs as such."

E15-klo-IA-10: I argue, that there is no clarity or interpretation needed here, "closed against any governmental regulation of religious beliefs as such." For the language protecting free exercise is explicit, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; ...." Though, I fear Chief Justice Roberts will take leave to redefine "such" as in No. 14?114, DAVID KING, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. SYLVIA BURWELL, ET AL., 25-Jun-2015 once a again to protect the legislation over the people, as in in Nat'l Fed'n of Indep. Bus. v. Sebelius 567 U.S. ___ (2012), "It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices." Where ever you are Tommy, T. J., know that there is one still fighting for you and US2 (We the People, and our United States of America).

"Government may neither compel affirmation of a repugnant belief, nor penalize or discriminate against individuals or groups because they hold religious views abhorrent to the authorities, nor employ the taxing power to inhibit the dissemination of particular religious views."

E15-klo-IA-11: I argue, that in my case I am directly compelled by criminal sanction to participate in the ACA for SCOTUS has ruled it to be a tax in Nat'l Fed'n of Indep. Bus. v. Sebelius 567 U.S. ___ (2012): 26 U.S.C.; "Title 26 - INTERNAL REVENUE CODE; Subtitle F - Procedure and Administration (sections 6001 - 7874); CHAPTER 75 - CRIMES, OTHER OFFENSES, AND FORFEITURES (sections 7201 - 7344); Subchapter A - Crimes (sections 7201 - 7241); PART I GENERAL PROVISIONS (sections 7201 - 7217); Sec. 7201 - Attempt to evade or defeat tax: Any

3:16-cv-93 Plaintiff's Page 4 of 8 Exhibit 15

person who willfully attempts in any manner to evade or defeat any tax imposed by this title or the payment thereof shall, in addition to other penalties provided by law, be guilty of a felony and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not more than $100,000 ($500,000 in the case of a corporation), or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both, together with the costs of prosecution," or modify my beliefs to a repugnant belief, thus the ACA and the Social Security Act should be declared unconstitutional and I be awarded all the other Relief I seek in my Case. "repugnant belief", I believe that all beliefs of organized religion, gods, are repugnant, for they stand between me and GOD, and place demands on how I should believe and act in violation of GOD'S First Command, "You shall have no other gods before or besides ME!"

E15-klo-IA-12: I argue, that in Nat'l Fed'n of Indep. Bus. v. Sebelius 567 U.S. ___ (2012): Chief Justice Roberts delivering the opinion: Argued in the section on the application of the "individual mandate as a penalty" as part of the "Commerce Clause" that "The Act, however, bars the IRS from using several of its normal enforcement tools, such as criminal prosecutions and levies.", however that application was found to be unconstitutional, "The commerce power thus does not authorize the mandate.", so SCOTUS moved to the Government's request for consideration as an application of the "individual mandate as a tax" as part of the "taxing powers of Congress", there they held that it was a tax, "The reasons the Court in Drexel Furniture held that what was called a "tax" there was a penalty support the conclusion that what is called a "penalty" here may be viewed as a tax.", but he also attempted to hold to the assertion that, "Third, the payment is collected solely by the IRS through the normal means of taxation--except that the Service is not allowed to use those means most suggestive of a punitive sanction, such as criminal prosecution. See ?5000A(g)(2).", then in concluding he stated, "If a tax is properly paid, the Government has no power to compel or punish individuals subject to it.", emphasis on "properly paid", what becomes important here is the actual reading of "?5000A(g)(2) SPECIAL RULES.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law--``(A) WAIVER OF CRIMINAL PENALTIES.--In the case of any failure by a taxpayer to timely pay any penalty imposed by this section, such taxpayer shall not be subject to any criminal prosecution or penalty with respect to such failure.", emphasis on "any failure by a taxpayer to timely pay", and it says nothing to the event of "not paying" ? the SCOTUS assumptions as to "not allowed" are bogus, for to tell this executive/administrative branch that it can't do something because the statute says it can't, is like telling a bear it can't defecate in the woods, the bear is going to do what it wants, just like this executive/administrative branch does: bear as in the big red bear of Russia, and it fits even more closely than can be imagined, as in my case relative to the Free Exercise of my religious beliefs and practices, thus I am directly compelled by criminal sanction to participate in the ACA because I'm not allowed a Religious Exemption, even more so because in the ACA it actually does allow for Criminal Penalties for not paying, and Chief Justice Roberts said as much in stating "properly paid".

3:16-cv-93 Plaintiff's Page 5 of 8 Exhibit 15

E15-klo-IA-13: Chief Justice Roberts later in his concluding remarks on the tax goes on to say, "Third, although the breadth of Congress's power to tax is greater than its power to regulate commerce, the taxing power does not give Congress the same degree of control over individual behavior.", but in my case, and others this is exactly what Congress is trying to do with the very restrictive religious exemption language, and overall it does as I argued above relative to exceeding the limits related to "common defense".

"It is too late in the day to doubt that the liberties of religion and expression may be infringed by the denial of or placing of conditions upon a benefit or privilege. [Footnote 6]"

E15-klo-IA-14: I argue, that if the Judiciary can't find the entirety of the ACA and Social Security Act unconstitutional or even the section on religious exemption, I still should be granted my right of Free Exercise of religious beliefs and practices unencumbered by these two acts and be awarded the Compensatory damages that I seek in my Case and the other damages against those who caused all the other harm to me.

"[Footnote 6]

See, for examples of conditions and qualifications upon governmental privileges and benefits which have been invalidated because of their tendency to inhibit constitutionally protected activity, Steinberg v. United States, 143 Ct.Cl. 1, 163 F.Supp. 590; Syrek v. California Unemployment Ins. Board, 54 Cal.2d 519, 354 P.2d 625; Fino v. Maryland Employment Security Board, 218 Md. 504, 147 A.2d 738; Chicago Housing Authority v. Blackman, 4 Ill.2d 319, 122 N.E.2d 522; Housing Authority of Los Angeles v. Cordova, 130 Cal.App.2d 883, 279 P.2d 215; Lawson v. Housing Authority of Milwaukee, 270 Wis. 269, 70 N.W.2d 605; Danskin v. San Diego Unified School District, 28 Cal.2d 536, 171 P.2d 885; American Civil Liberties Union v. Board of Education, 55 Cal.2d 167, 359 P.2d 45; cf. City of Baltimore v. A. S. Abell Co., 218 Md. 273, 145 A.2d 111. See also Willcox, Invasions of the First Amendment Through Conditioned Public Spending, 41 Cornell L.Q. 12 (1955); Emerson, Toward a General Theory of the First Amendment, 72 Yale L.J. 877, 942-943 (1963); 36 N.Y.U.L.Rev. 1052 (1961); 9 Kan.L.Rev. 346 (1961); Note, Unconstitutional Conditions, 73 Harv.L.Rev. 1595, 1599-1602 (1960)."

"For example, in Flemming v. Nestor, 363 U. S. 603, 363 U. S. 611, the Court recognized with respect to Federal Social Security benefits that "[t]he interest of a covered employee under the Act is of sufficient substance to fall within the protection from arbitrary governmental action afforded by the Due Process Clause.""

E15-klo-IA-15: I argue, that if the Judiciary can't find the entirety of the ACA and Social Security Act unconstitutional or even the section on religious exemption, I still should be granted my right of free exercise of religious beliefs and practices unencumbered by these two acts and be awarded the compensatory damages, and the right of action for punitive damages that I seek in my complaint.

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

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

Google Online Preview   Download