Oh Really? Please explain how such a case is even considered a case by intelligent loyal Americans who inhabit the Continental united States?
- The 14th Amendment. Congressional fraud!
- So what is it about the 14th Amendment?
- MEMORIAL TO CONGRESS — FOURTEENTH AND FIFTEENTH AMENDMENTS TO U.S. CONSTITUTION BE DECLARED VOID
Just a special point to be made…In 1957 the entire state of Georgia declared the 14th Amendment null and void. That is a unanimous declaration. A unanimous declaration by an official state government with the full vested power of the people. Let us add in the agreement of about 11 additional states.
Based upon the full faith and credit clause…all states…must also accept the findings of the state of Georgia as fact!
Please explain by what possible slight of hand lawful mechanism, except blatant fraud, could explain why and how this non-existent amendment is enforced by a legitimate government AT THE FEDERAL, STATE, COUNTY AND MUNICIPAL LEVEL, acting on the lawful delegated authority of the governed? HOW IS THIS POSSIBLE?
So who is asking? The old man who knows nothing.
But you too should be asking your local public servants.
On Apr 7, 2015, at 8:59 PM, Lee <email@example.com> wrote:
Interesting case below, FYI…..L
Sharing useful / interesting information for peaceful solutions to a better society.
On Tuesday, April 7, 2015 4:25 PM, George Daniel <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
This is an interesting Federal Case, not that old,
which distinguishes federal rights, which are
actually privileges granted by the Federal Govt,
from the Rights of State Citizens. Highlighting mine.
Here is the entire case, if you want to research —
Jones v Temmer – 1993
Second, defendants argue that plaintiff Ebong has no standing to maintain a claim under the privileges and immunities clause because he is not a citizen of the United States. See Banerjee v. Roberts, 641 F.Supp. 1093, 1103 (D.Conn.1985). By its terms, § 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment protects only “persons born or naturalized in the United States.” By his own admission, plaintiff Ebong is neither; he is a “permanent resident of the United States.” (Complaint ¶ 5.) Thus, the privileges and immunities claim with respect to plaintiff Ebong will be dismissed for lack of standing.
Defendants further argue that all plaintiffs lack standing to bring the privileges and immunities portion of the first claim for relief because that clause protects nonresidents of Colorado from discrimination based on their nonresident status, and here, each plaintiff is a resident of Colorado. Plaintiffs respond that defendants have confused the privileges and immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment with the privileges and immunities clause under Article IV, section 2 of the Constitution.
The privileges and immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects very few rights because it neither incorporates any of the Bill of Rights nor protects all rights of individual citizens. See Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 36, 21 L.Ed. 394 (1873). Instead, this provision protects only those rights peculiar to being a citizen of the federal government; it does not protect those rights which relate to state citizenship.