Forum

Free news

FREE blog

Donate

Search

Subscribe

jews/911

Feedback

dna

Gun poll

RCC

AIDS

Home

Fathers

Surveys

Holocaust

IQ

14th Amdt

19th Amdt

Israelites

NWO

Homicide

Blacks

Whites

Signatory

Talmud

Watchman

Gaelic

Traitors

Health?

 

Equal Protection

 

  1. "Equal protection" never applied to any group other than slaves, both blacks and Whites, until 1961 "nearly a century after the fourteenth amendment was adopted".
  2. The COURT, not the appropriate authority, then falsely claimed that the original authors intended for it to apply to ALL blacks, and to NOT apply to Whites who were slaves.
  3. The court itself acknowledges that it never applied"equal protection" to women for more than a century, just as the original authors intended.
  4. In 1971 in Reed v. Reed the COURT, not the appropriate authority, falsely claimed that the original authors actually intended for it to apply to women.
  5. The Constitution itself *requires* a constitutional convention with three quarters agreeing to change such a foundational principle.
  6. Such a constitutional convention NEVER took place.
  7. It was thus the COURTS, and not the legislators nor "we the people", who undermined the "right to exclude".
  8. It was the destruction of the 14th Amendment and not a war which was the real revolution.
  9. The American people spoke on this issue by roundly defeating the Equal Rights Amendment which would have been the LEGAL way to give women "equal rights".
  10. By the court's own rulings, the Supreme Court is repugnant to the US Constitution, all it's rulings since 1971 "null and void", and "inoperative as though it had never been passed".
  11. Until this constitutional convention is held, and three quarters agree to apply "equal protection" to blacks and women, all rulings based on this misapplication of law are "null and void".
  12. Those who took the oath to defend the US Constitution against foreign *and domestic* enemies are duty bound to consider the Supreme Court as this domestic enemy and an outlaw.

 

horizontal rule

Justice Douglas states in Oregon v. Mitchell that his Supreme Court was fully aware that the 14th Amendment was never intended by its authors nor "we the people" to apply to women, and that it didn't even apply to women with the passage of the 19th Amendment three quarters of a century later which gave women the vote.  He also admits that for more than a century his own court applied it ONLY to the rights of those who had been slaves, both blacks and Whites, to give them the vote, and that it was the COURT on December 21, 1970, and not "we the people", nor the Legislative Branch which has that responsibility, nor even the president (who has more authority than the Judicial Branch to pass such laws but for whom it would STILL be treason), who told "we the people" to just shove it.

It's hard to imagine which of the following possible scenarios is the most egregious:

  1. For more than a century, the Surpreme Court never really understood that the original authors intended for it to apply to women and it wasn't until 1971 that they finally understood that they did.
  2. For more than a century, the Supreme Court actually understood that the 14th Amendment had ALWAYS applied to women, but always issued rulings against this notion out of pure sexism.
  3. The authors of the Fourteenth Amendment and every Supreme Court for the next century actually thought that it applied to women but forgot to articulate it until the Supreme Court did in 1971.
  4. The passage of the Nineteenth Amendment more than half a century after the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment proved that we the people actually wanted equal protection to apply to women and it's failre to notice this was due to a mere oversight.
  5. In 1971, the Supreme Court committed TREASON when it applied equal protection to women in VIOLATION of the intent of the original authors of the Fourteenth Amendment, contrary to its OWN rulings for more than a century, contrary to the will of we the people who righteously rejected the Equal Rights Amendment would would have done this LEGALLY, and in violation of the holy Bible.

The following is God's Law, no US court is God, they simply cannot change it, and this will be law for this putative Christian nation for the next 10,000 years!:

"But I want you to know that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ", 1 Corinthians 11:3

By Justice Douglas acknowledging that the court was fully aware that the 14th Amendment had never applied to women, not even with the passage of the 19th Amendment to give women the vote, he establishes our own Supreme Court is an outlaw:

<<<THERE WAS NO RELIEF BY WAY OF THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  IN MINOR V. HAPPERSETT, 21 WALL.  162, THE COURT HELD IN THE 1874 TERM THAT A STATE COULD CONSTITUTIONALLY RESTRICT THE FRANCHISE TO MEN [and thus that the 14th Amendment did not apply to women, did not give women the vote, that even the 19th Amendment did not change the 14th Amendment which still never applied to women for another 53 years>>>

This is a SUPREME COURT JUSTICE, writing in 1970, that FOR A CENTURY OR MORE, the Supreme Court itself was fully aware that the 14th Amendment was never intended to apply to women, and never DID apply to women.  This same court also acknowledges that even after women got the "franchise" [read: the right to vote] with the 19th Amendment in 1919--this same court STILL never applied the 14th Amendment  to women.

The historical precedents against such a ruling are immense, almost inconceivable.  We know that for 3,000 years of Israelite history prior to Jesus such a thought was repugnant to God's Law.  We know that at the time of Jesus, 1 Corinthians 11:3 quoted above established God's Natural Order and made any such ideology repugnant to Christians worldwide.  We know that in 1611 at the time of the translation of the KJV version of the Holy Bible that God's Natural Order was a maxim of common law.  We know that between the time Columbus landed here in 1492 and the ratification of the US Constitution in 1776, almost three centuries, that it was God's Law and not man's law which ruled.  We know that some states gave women the vote prior to the ratification of the US Constitution, and that it was that constitution which restricted the vote only to men.  We know that for a century, the term "equal protection" wasn't even in the US Constitution until July 9, 1868, when the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified.  We now know for certain that the court itself knew that this concept of "equal protection" was not intended by its authors to apply to women, was not even applied to women by this same court for more than a century after that, not even the court itself ever considered that it applied to women, and that its application to women in Reed v. Reed in 1971 violated all of their own precedents and made all of their rulings since then "null and void".

This coupled with the unprecedented application to blacks in 1961 also caused an immediate doubling of our already record high divorce rate.

equalprotectiondivorce.gif (10621 bytes)

DO YOU RECALL THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION WHEREIN THE 14TH AMENDMENT WAS AMENDED?  Of course you don't, because it never happened.  Is this what's required to so radically misrepresent the original intentions of the authors of the 14th Amendment and "we the people" so severely that it nullifies our intentions?  Of course it is.  A "supreme court" has no authority to reverse the application of the law established by the Legislative Branch, as well as a century's worth of its own precedents.  After more than a century of it NEVER applying to women, and even the Supreme Court itself acknowledging that fact, this same court CANNOT just willy nilly apply it to women without expecting to suffer the consequences of its actions:

That which is against Devine Law is repugnant to society and is void.

Common Law Maxim.

 

 

"All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void." Marbury vs Madison, 5 US (2 Cranch) 137, 174, 176, (1803)

"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them quot; Miranda vs Arizona, 384 US 436 p. 491.

"An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no right; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed." Norton vs Shelby County \ 18 US 425 p.442

By the courts' own rulings, their unilateral, unlawful, unGodly, anti-Christ application of "equal protection" to women in Reed v. Reed made the Supreme Court "repugnant to society", "repugnant to the US constitution", made all their rulings since then "null and void", and "inoperative as though it had never been passed".

 

whitesdrivecadillacs.jpg (81501 bytes)

Justice William O. Douglas, who died in 1980, wrote:                 

I SUPPOSE THAT IN 1920, WHEN THE NINETEENTH AMENDMENT WAS RATIFIED

GIVING WOMEN THE RIGHT TO VOTE, IT WAS ASSUMED BY MOST CONSTITUTIONAL

EXPERTS THAT THERE WAS NO RELIEF BY WAY OF THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE

OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  IN MINOR V. HAPPERSETT, 21 WALL.  162,

THE COURT HELD IN THE 1874 TERM THAT A STATE COULD CONSTITUTIONALLY

RESTRICT THE FRANCHISE TO MEN.  WHILE THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT WAS

RELIED UPON, THE THRUST OF THE OPINION WAS DIRECTED AT THE PRIVILEGES

AND IMMUNITIES CLAUSE WITH A SUBSIDIARY REFERENCE TO THE DUE PROCESS

CLAUSE.  IT WAS MUCH LATER, INDEED NOT UNTIL THE 1961 TERM-- NEARLY A

CENTURY AFTER THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT WAS ADOPTED-- THAT

DISCRIMINATION AGAINST VOTERS ON GROUNDS OTHER THAN RACE WAS STRUCK

DOWN.

"THIS NEW CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT WAS MAINLY DESIGNED FOR CITIZENS OF

AFRICAN DESCENT.  THE PRINCIPLE, HOWEVER, THAT THE PROTECTION OF THE

EXERCISE OF THIS RIGHT IS WITHIN THE POWER OF CONGRESS, IS AS NECESSARY

TO THE RIGHT OF OTHER CITIZENS TO VOTE AS TO THE COLORED CITIZEN, AND

TO THE RIGHT TO VOTE IN GENERAL AS TO THE RIGHT TO BE PROTECTED AGAINST

DISCRIMINATION." 



IT WAS IN THAT TRADITION THAT WE SAID IN REYNOLDS V. SIMS, SUPRA, AT

555, "THE RIGHT TO VOTE FREELY FOR THE CANDIDATE OF ONE'S CHOICE IS OF

THE ESSENCE OF A DEMOCRATIC SOCIETY, AND ANY RESTRICTIONS ON THAT RIGHT

STRIKE AT THE HEART OF REPRESENTATIVE GOVERNMENT." 



THIS "RIGHT TO CHOOSE, SECURED BY THE CONSTITUTION," UNITED STATES

V. CLASSIC, 313 U.S. 299, 315, IS A CIVIL RIGHT OF THE HIGHEST ORDER. 

VOTING CONCERNS "POLITICAL" MATTERS; BUT THE RIGHT IS NOT "POLITICAL"

IN THE CONSTITUTIONAL SENSE.  INTERFERENCE WITH IT HAS GIVEN RISE TO A

LONG AND CONSISTENT LINE OF DECISIONS BY THE COURT; AND THE CLAIM HAS

ALWAYS BEEN UPHELD AS JUSTICIABLE.  /5/  WHATEVER DISTINCTION MAY HAVE

BEEN MADE, FOLLOWING THE CIVIL WAR, BETWEEN "CIVIL" AND "POLITICAL"

RIGHTS, HAS PASSED INTO HISTORY.  IN HARPER V; VIRGINIA BOARD OF

ELECTIONS, 383 U.S. 663, 669, WE STATED:  "NOTIONS OF WHAT CONSTITUTES

EQUAL TREATMENT FOR PURPOSES OF THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE DO

CHANGE."  THAT STATEMENT IS IN HARMONY WITH MY VIEW OF THE FOURTEENTH

AMENDMENT, AS EXPRESSED BY MY BROTHER BRENNAN:  "WE MUST THEREFORE

CONCLUDE THAT ITS FRAMERS UNDERSTOOD THEIR AMENDMENT TO BE A BROADLY

WORDED INJUNCTION CAPABLE OF BEING INTERPRETED BY FUTURE GENERATIONS IN

ACCORDANCE WITH THE VISION AND NEEDS OF THOSE GENERATIONS."  POST, AT

278.  HENCE THE HISTORY OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT TENDERED BY MY

BROTHER HARLAN IS IRRELEVANT TO THE PRESENT PROBLEM. 



SINCE THE RIGHT IS CIVIL AND NOT "POLITICAL," IT IS PROTECTED BY THE

EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT WHICH IN TURN, BY

SEC. 5 OF THAT AMENDMENT, CAN BE "ENFORCED" BY CONGRESS.

horizontal rule

What other than these words in Oregon v. Mitchell, 400 US 112, on December 21, 1970 could have gotten us into the troubles we now face today?  Isn't it treason to claim that "this new constitutional right"--namely the Fourteenth Amendment, and specifically the term "equal protection"--were "mainly" designed for citizens of African descent?  Were not the framers of this amendment were very careful to specify that this amendment was written SOLELY to free slaves, both blacks and Whites, and give them citizenship, be they of African descent or not, or whether they are black or white?  Were not many slaves NOT of African descent, and were not most of those from Africa not slaves?  Would this amendment ever have been ratified if the guarantee were not made by the framers of the amendment that it would apply narrowly to only *slaves*?  Was it not flat out prevarication for the court to change this to "mainly" and "of African descent" after more than a century during which all of their predecessors understood what it meant, applied it themselves exactly as they themselves understood it, and never called for the constitutional convention REQUIRED by the Constitution itself to make such a monumental change?

The court stated that they agreed with the view that "NOTIONS OF WHAT CONSTITUTES EQUAL TREATMENT FOR PURPOSES OF THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE DO CHANGE". 

How did it change!!?  Who changed it??  

Did we the people, or Congress, or the States, inform this court that we had either changed our minds about these "notions", or abandoned our Christian principles regarding the sanctity of marriage which this misapplication of "equal protection" completely undermined?  No.  Did the two thirds of the California voters who rejected laws established by judicial fiat (like affirmative action) support such an assertion that these "notions" changed?  Just the opposite.  Isn't it clear as a bell that the 84% of whites and 76% of blacks who answered in the Gallup Poll that they do not support racial set-asides, would not support such an assertion?  Sure.  Aren't the 90% of women in the home who stated that they did not envy women in the workplace, and the 50% of the women in the workplace who said that they DO envy women in the home, demonstrating by example that they do NOT support support such an assertion?  Absolutely.  Wouldn't the 80% of women entering Eastern feminist universities who soundly reject feminism, reject such an assertion, as well as the 98% of women who've expressed utter disgust for feminism, disagree with such a conclusion?  No doubt about it.  Aren't the majority who voted against the "Equal Rights Amendment" who defeated such notions contrary to such a conclusion.  In SPADES!

Exactly WHO,then, is the court talking about?   Their pet iguanas?

Themselves?

Not even the small number of people who might agree with such a ruling even had the chance to debate or even discuss it, because it happened by the will of 9 (or fewer) Supreme Court Justices, and only by them.  When the court says: "WE MUST THEREFORE CONCLUDE THAT ITS FRAMERS UNDERSTOOD THEIR AMENDMENT TO BE A BROADLY WORDED INJUNCTION CAPABLE OF BEING INTERPRETED BY FUTURE GENERATIONS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE VISION AND NEEDS OF THOSE GENERATIONS", exactly WHO is the court talking about? 

The legislature asked!: by way of the "Equal Rights Amendment" and we the people responded with a resounding "NO".  Most of those who belong to these "future generations" weren't even asked, much less even given the chance to say "NO".

And the few who were asked, did say "NO".

Thanks to judicial fiat [read: treason] these "future generations" are now living under a totalitarian state, not the will of the majority of "past generations", much less the will of present or future generations, much less of God's Law.

The distinction the court made between "civil" and "political" rights didn't even exist in the minds of those who drafted the Fourteenth Amendment, so using this to conclude that the framers "understood their amendment to be a broadly worded injunction", when they knew that the framers were under the gun to craft the narrowest injunction possible (namely to apply only to slaves, and not to women, nor to women slaves), and DID craft such an amendment, and did APPLY such an amendment for more than a century, is specious beyond words.  It's a direct violation of the will of the people, AND of Congress.  To say that it "CAN BE "ENFORCED" BY CONGRESS" when Congress itself stated over and over and over again for MORE THAN A CENTURY that the amendment was intended for that one narrow application, is judicial fiat.  There was no single act of Congress which allowed the Supreme Court to make such an "interpretation" of this amendment--it was accomplished solely by an extremist, unpopular, ill-founded Supreme Court ruling, which has had devastating consequences, not the least of which is the ultimate admission of women to and destruction of VMI.

 

 

 

 

TRAITOR McCain

jewn McCain

ASSASSIN of JFK, Patton, many other Whites

killed 264 MILLION Christians in WWII

killed 64 million Christians in Russia

holocaust denier extraordinaire--denying the Armenian holocaust

millions dead in the Middle East

tens of millions of dead Christians

LOST $1.2 TRILLION in Pentagon
spearheaded torture & sodomy of all non-jews
millions dead in Iraq

42 dead, mass murderer Goldman LOVED by jews

serial killer of 13 Christians

the REAL terrorists--not a single one is an Arab

serial killers are all jews

framed Christians for anti-semitism, got caught
left 350 firemen behind to die in WTC

legally insane debarred lawyer CENSORED free speech

mother of all fnazis, certified mentally ill

10,000 Whites DEAD from one jew LIE

moser HATED by jews: he followed the law

f.ck Jesus--from a "news" person!!

1000 fold the child of perdition

 

Hit Counter

 

Modified Saturday, March 11, 2017

Copyright @ 2007 by Fathers' Manifesto & Christian Party