If "Our Creator" endowed us with rights...

You seem to be the kind of guy that just can't get it right to save his butt. I was warned about you. You're going to take a butt whooping here and you'll repeat the same lies to people equally deluded. Here is something you should read so that you will understand the difference between a Republic and a Democracy:

https://archive.org/stream/pdfy-X8kxTtso2nVVynxP/1928 army training manual-25_djvu.txt

Dude, you'd argue with a tree stump.

 

FWIW - Inalienable rights CAN BE taken away. Unalienable Rights cannot be taken away. So, you don't know your Declaration of Independence as good as you thought you did.

The 14th Amendment was passed on the pretext of reversing Dred Scott v. Sanford. In fact, the 14th Amendment was illegally ratified and its true purpose was to nullify the Bill of Rights. The key to be good at debating this stuff is to study the other guy's arguments more than he studies them and offer irrefutable facts that people like you will not take the time to read. I can tell you reams of facts related to this that you never heard. None of it related to the OP, but when you can't make headway with the subject at hand, it is helpful to change the subject in order to hide the fact that you didn't understand the OP was much as you thought you did.

 

You're the most insecure poster I've seen on this board!

I don't believe the Christian churches practice slavery today as a legitimate part of an official relligious institution. That's criminal behavior. They can be arrested. And, it's counter to the fundamental moral precepts of the Bible.

Slavery is a crime in the US. Like other crimes, it may exist - as in the estimated 80k or so slaves in the US today.

I have no idea what you mean by subtle slavery. Slavery does have a definition. And, it is prosecutable in all states as it is an assault on the rights enumerated in our constitution.

 

No, its not, immigrants consent to be governed or they are turned back. Its a boilerplate contract.

True, however the courts butchered the constitution the latter is fast becoming the main menu.

Consider readingmore, will;


Origin
Some believe that in ancient times, this was a common way for impoverished people to provide subsistence for themselves or their family and provision was made for this in law.[2] For example, the code of Hammurabi stated that "besides being able to borrow on personal security, an individual might sell himself or a family member into slavery".[3] However, according to a different translation, "If any one fail to meet a claim for debt, and sell himself, his wife, his son, and daughter for money or give them away to forced labor: they shall work for three years in the house of the man who bought them, or the proprietor, and in the fourth year they shall be set free."[4] This may be interpreted to mean that rather than people voluntary selling themselves into slavery in return for a loan, slavery was simply the standard penalty for failure to pay off a debt.[5] Other parts of the Code of Hammurabi show both debt and slavery as being part of the criminal justice system of the time, such as, "If any one be too lazy to keep his dam in proper condition, and does not so keep it; if then the dam break and all the fields be flooded, then shall he in whose dam the break occurred be sold for money, and the money shall replace the corn which he has caused to be ruined."[6]

According to some sources, in ancient times, one of the most direct ways to become a Roman or Greek citizen was by means of a self-sale contract. The laws surrounding Roman and Greek manumission made it quite possible for such erstwhile slaves to then become citizens or near-citizens themselves.[7] However, according to Walter Scheidel, while it is possible that some genuine self-sales may have occurred in ancient Rome, the quantitative weight of such events would have been minimal.[8] In ancient Greece, a form of voluntary slavery was associated with pederasty. Here, it was viewed as a component of reciprocal relationship wherein lovers consider voluntary servitude as legitimate, particularly in the effort to honorably satisfy the beloved in the pursuit of virtue.[9] Voluntary servitude in this case was integral in the practice of education.

In medieval Russia, self-sale was the main source of slaves.[10] However, as two of the reasons for self-sale in Russian history were avoidance of the military draft and avoidance of poll taxes, also known as soul taxes, it is questionable how voluntary this sort of slavery really was.[11]

Thats the way it was done back then, today we do it through banking.

 

You were warned? LOL.
The little alt right pvt coffee club?

 

Yeh because of all that tax revenue they lose!

 

We are divided as a republic.

But, that doesn't specify how positions of power are determined or how decisions are made.

In the US, we use democracy - we are a democratic nation. We select our leaders through democracy. We make our decisions through a representitive democracy. We can't all be there (obviously). In my state and many others, I can write a law and (if I rally enough signatures) the populations of the state will vote on whether it becomes a law. That law will even have special protection against the representatives we voted into our legislature.

A republic certainly does not have to choose its positions of power through democracy. It could be by birthright, by an oligarchy, by a specific religion, or whatever. Rome was a republic.

Everyone from de Tocqueiville on has discussed democracy in America - in fact, it was a title of one of his books. It's our democracy that made us what we are - what made us different.

1928 military manuals as a source of civics? Wow!

 

You are the most insecure poster I've met on this board, so we're even. You have to make at least one straw man argument and /or employ fallacies with no supporting evidence in at least every other post. I don't do that. For example:

I NEVER said churches condone slavery. Are you really that desperate? I said WE still practice slavery... we, the people. What are you afraid of? How come every exchange you're trying to go off topic or say things that are not true?

Look, a few years ago I had to go to work for an employment agency. It was the only way into the door of the company. Some guy sits on his butt, I work. He charges a set amount per hour for me being there and he gets 40 percent of the money. How is that NOT slavery? The employer ran extensive checks on me, liked the fact that they could trust me with company vehicles, credit cards, and keys to the building. So they bought my contract. The principle is no different than servitude... which is slavery. A rose by any other name... You pay income taxes. That is a plank out of the Communist Manifesto. The income tax was supposed to be both temporary and voluntary. Now, all kinds of people live off the working man's sweat. How is THAT not slavery? In order to get some jobs, you must forfeit your Rights to get the job (i.e. a drug test OR worse, a criminal background check.) What's with the presumption of innocence disappearing here? That is slavery. I could give you a hundred examples, but like I said, you would argue with a tree stump.

 

So the people who are in the business of defending the Constitution aren't qualified to explain to you what they were defending? Yeah, WOW!!!! You sound like a high school drop-out, promoting a form of government the framers hated and despised. There isn't even a foundation for what you advocate.

 

I don't believe I've said anything counter to that in any post - and it seems irrelevant to the fragments to which you responded.

Slavery certainly covers a fairly broad range when reading authors in history - or even just reading about what has happened in the past.

Even though what you quoted can probably be found, it's best if you cite yourr source - not that it matters this time.

 

I don't know anyone in the alt right. Yeah, you warned me. That's why I'm not using a lot of bandwidth to address his stuff. I just wonder sometimes who is trying to convince... us or himself?

 

like it or not it was a means to pay debts and even the score for penalties or whatever, not to much different than banks today, or forced slavery in the prison system. Lots of white people came here as slaves to pay their shipping debts etc etc etc off.

sure:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntary_slavery

 

When you just say "we" it's hard to know who you mean. I didn't mean to accuse you of anything.

I don't have your contract at my disposal, obviously, but head hunters do a job. Since those who usually use their service often don't have up front money to pay for the service, they often will take a cut of the income for some fixed period. If you can pay them off up front, they probably have no complaint.

That's not slavery. You're paying for someone to find you a job. If they help get you into a high paying job, they probably will want more - their selling a better product.

 

Yes.

 

I dont know will, looks to me like blacks even had the right to own slaves

On March 26, 1857, William Ellison wrote to his son Henry Ellison about the family business. Life was going well and Ellison wanted to update his son on how things were going at home. John, one of Ellison’s 53 slaves had just been to the river to collect payment from a number of white slaveowners for the cotton gins they had purchased from Mr. Ellison.

Dude was worth 1/4 million by 1855!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntary_slavery



Top 10 Black Slaveowners

10. Dilsey Pope
Dilsey Pope was born a free woman, and when she was older, she bought the man she loved in order to marry him. Many state laws at the time would not allow slaves to be emancipated, so it was common for family or spouses to technically own their family. Dilsy owned her own house and land, and she also hired her husband out as labor.

9. Jacob Gasken
When Jacob grew older, his mother helped him to buy his father. The family was happy with this arrangement, although the father was technically still their slave until he attempted to do what all parents do: reprimand his son. This is when this story becomes notable.
One day, Jacob’s father scolded him after Jacob had misbehaved (as any good father would do). Jacob, a petulant, entitled boy, became so angry with his father that he sold him to a New Orleans trader and then later bragged to his friends and colleagues about sending his own father to be a slave on a plantation in Louisiana to “learn him some manners.”

8. Nat Butler
Nat Butler makes this list for the special type of manipulative cruelty that he showed toward his fellow humans. Butler was one of the worst kinds of slave owners. Not only did he participate in the trade, but he actively tricked slaves into running away so that he could sell them back to their masters.

7. Justus Angel And Mistress L. Horry
Justus Angel and Mistress L. Horry were wealthy black masters who each owned 84 slaves, or 168 together.[4] They were located in Colleton District (now Charleston County) in South Carolina in 1830. Because most slave owners only had a handful of slaves, Angel and Horry were considered economic elite and were called slave magnates.

6. Widow C. Richards And Son P.C. Richards
In 1860, slave owners, white or black, owned around one to five slaves on average. About 28 percent of the free black population in New Orleans at the time owned slaves, with at least six owning 65 or more.

C. Richards and her son P.C. go above and beyond these other six slave owners by owning over twice as many. The widow and her son operated a large sugar plantation together and owned more slaves than all other black slave owners in Louisiana in 1860, topping off at 152.

5. The Pendarvis Family
During the 1730s, the Pendarvis family was one of the most prominent in the South, owning the biggest rice plantations in the Palmetto region and over 123 slaves. They dominated Colleton County (now the Charleston area) and became one of the wealthiest slaveholding families in South Carolina.

Marie Therese Metoyer
Under Marie’s leadership, the Metoyer family prospered, and the plantation grew. Eventually, they owned more slaves than any other family in their county, with the number being reported at 287 by 1830. There isn’t much evidence of harsh treatment to their own slaves, but the Metoyers were notorious for buying extra slaves to do the hardest tasks on the plantation and then returning them after the work was finished.

3. Antoine Dubuclet
Antoine Dubuclet was born a free man to free parents and inherited a large sugar plantation called Cedar Grove from his father. Under his father, the plantation was small and contained only a few slaves. Under Antoine’s leadership, it grew, and by 1860, he owned over 100 slaves and had one of the largest sugar plantations in Louisiana. He was extremely wealthy, even more so than any of his white neighbors. His plantation was worth $264,000, while the average income of his neighbors in the South was only around $3,978.

2. William (April) Ellison
In 1862, William Ellison was one of the largest slave owners in South Carolina as well as one of the wealthiest. He was born a slave and was given the name April, after the month in which he was born. He was luckier than most and was bought by a white slave owner named William Ellison, who took the time to educate him. When he was 26 years old, he was freed by his master and began building his expansive cotton plantation. As a free man, he had his name changed to William Ellison, that of his former owner.

1. Anthony Johnson
Nobody on this list has affected the history of slavery quite as much as Anthony Johnson. He is rumored to have been the first black man to arrive in Virginia as well as the first black indentured servant in America. He was also the first black man to gain his freedom and the first to own land. As a true pioneer of firsts, Johnson couldn’t stop there. Ironically, he became the first black slave owner, and it was his court case that solidified slavery in America.

http://theweeklychallenger.com/top-10-black-slaveowners/

 

True. And, those in Africa helped the slave trade, too.

I'm not sure what you think that means in terms of our constitution, but you nailed the topic you chose for your post, as I know it, at least.

 

Seems to me that the 13th was actually no nobility in office, and somehow magically got switched to no slavery, then the fraud to hijack the constitution with the 14th claiming that the very people that created the feds were not adjudicable under the feds. Quite the bs party you know, force the south out of congress and then vote on what was it Christmas? When the place was deserted! Been a while since I thought about the criminal overthrow of our government.

 

I'm not the one changing the subject.

I purposely put two triggers in my response for you and off you went.

Inalienable and unalienable are synonyms.

The 14th Amendment did have a shaky start but I don't think that is why you don't like it. Could it be the Equal Protection Clause or the Due Process Clause? Nah, it's probably the Citizenship Clause.

Tell me you are not among the sovereign citizen loons.

 

He'd be correct if he did make that loony claim, which is what the bogus 14th was created to insure the overlords would not happen. The blacks were all sovereign until thei 14th and you know how the criminal cabal operates, cant have anyone running around they cant put to the thumb screws.

Now I have not been able to locate th spies case online but that does in fact articulate the fraud and explain how the coup demolished and illegally converted your 'original' rights to privileges.

Maybe join Will and read more?

Dyett v. Turner
20 Utah 2d 403 (196 439 P.2d 266

GERALD J. DYETT, PLAINTIFF, v. JOHN W. TURNER, WARDEN, UTAH STATE PRISON, DEFENDANT.
No. 11089.
Supreme Court of Utah.
March 22, 1968.
Del B. Rowe, Salt Lake City, for plaintiff.
Phil L. Hansen, Atty. Gen., Salt Lake City, for defendant.
ELLETT, Justice:

When the 39th Congress assembled on December 5, 1865, the senators and representatives from the 25 northern states voted to deny seats in both houses of Congress to anyone elected from the 11 southern states. The full complement of senators from the 36 states of the Union was 72, and the full membership in the House was 240. Since it requires only a majority vote (Article I, Section 5, Constitution of the United States) to refuse a seat in Congress, only the 50 senators and 182 congressmen from the North were seated. All of the 22 senators and 58 representatives from the southern states were denied seats.

Joint Resolution No. 48 proposing the Fourteenth Amendment was a matter of great concern to the Congress and to the people of the Nation. In order to have this proposed amendment submitted to the 36 states for ratification, it was necessary that two thirds of each house concur. A count of noses showed that only 33 senators were favorable to the measure, and 33 was a far cry from two thirds of 72 and lacked one of being two thirds of the 50 seated senators.

While it requires only a majority of votes to refuse a seat to a senator, it requires a two thirds majority to unseat a member once he is seated. (Article 1, Section 5, Constitution of the United States) One John P. Stockton was seated on December 5, 1865, as one of the senators from New Jersey. He was outspoken in his opposition to Joint Resolution No. 48 proposing the Fourteenth Amendment. The leadership in the Senate not having control of two thirds of the seated senators voted to refuse to seat Mr. Stockton upon the ground that he had received only a plurality and not a majority of the votes of the New Jersey legislature. It was the law of New Jersey and several other states that a plurality vote was sufficient for election. Besides, the Senator had already been seated. Nevertheless, his seat was refused, and the 33 favorable votes thus became the required two thirds of the 49 members of the Senate.

In the House of Representatives it would require 122 votes to be two thirds of the 182 members seated. Only 120 voted for the proposed amendment, but because there were 30 absententions it was declared to have been passed by a two thirds vote of the House.

Whether it requires two thirds of the full membership of both houses to propose an amendment to the Constitution or only two thirds of those seated or two thirds of those voting is a question which it would seem could only be determined by the United States Supreme Court. However, it is perhaps not so important for the reason that the amendment is only proposed by Congress. It must be ratified by three fourths of the states in the Union before it becomes a part of the Constitution. The method of securing the passage through Congress is set out above, as it throws some light on the means used to obtain ratification by the states thereafter.

Nebraska had been admitted to the Union, and so the Secretary of State in transmitting the proposed amendment announced that ratification by 28 states would be needed before the amendment would become part of the Constitution, since there were at the time 37 states in the Union. A rejection by 10 states would thus defeat the proposal.

By March 17, 1867, the proposed amendment had been ratified by 17 states and rejected by 10, with California voting to take no action thereon, which was equivalent to rejection. Thus the proposal was defeated.

One of the ratifying states, Oregon, had ratified by a membership wherein two legislators were subsequently held not to be duly elected, and after the contest the duly elected members of the legislature of Oregon rejected the proposed amendment. However, this rejection came after the amendment was declared passed.

Despite the fact that the southern states had been functioning peacefully for two years and had been counted to secure ratification of the Thirteenth Amendment, Congress passed the Reconstruction Act, which provided for the military occupation of 10 of the 11 southern states. It excluded Tennessee from military occupation, and one must suspect it was because Tennessee had ratified the Fourteenth Amendment on July 7, 1866. The Act further disfranchised practically all white voters and provided that no senator or congressman from the occupied states could be seated in Congress until a new constitution was adopted by each state which would be approved by Congress, and further provided that each of the 10 states must ratify the proposed Fourteenth Amendment, and the Fourteenth Amendment must become a part of the Constitution of the United States before the military occupancy would cease and the states be allowed to have seats in Congress.

By the time the Reconstruction Act had been declared to be the law, three more states had ratified the proposed Fourteenth Amendment, and two Louisiana and Delaware had rejected it. Then Maryland withdrew its prior ratification and rejected the proposed Fourteenth Amendment. Ohio followed suit and withdrew its prior ratification, as also did New Jersey. California, which earlier had voted not to pass upon the proposal, now voted to reject the amendment. Thus 16 of the 37 states had rejected the proposed amendment.

By spurious, nonrepresentative governments seven of the southern states which had theretofore rejected the proposed amendment under the duress of military occupation and of being denied representation in Congress did attempt to ratify the proposed Fourteenth Amendment. The Secretary of State on July 20, 1868, issued his proclamation wherein he stated that it was his duty under the law to cause amendments to be published and certified as a part of the Constitution when he received official notice that they had been adopted pursuant to the Constitution. Thereafter his certificate contained the following language:

And whereas neither the act just quoted from, nor any other law, expressly or by conclusive implication, authorizes the Secretary of State to determine and decide doubtful questions as to the authenticity of the organization of State legislatures, or as to the power of any State legislature to recall a previous act or resolution of ratification of any amendment proposed to the Constitution; And whereas it appears from official documents on file in this Department that the amendment to the Constitution of the United States, proposed as aforesaid, has been ratified by the legislatures of the States of [naming 23, including New Jersey, Ohio, and Oregon]; And whereas it further appears from documents on file in this Department that the amendment to the Constitution of the United States, proposed as aforesaid, has also been ratified by newly constituted and newly established bodies avowing themselves to be and acting as the legislatures, respectively, of the States of Arkansas, Florida, North Carolina, Louisiana, South Carolina, and Alabama; And whereas it further appears from official documents on file in this Department that the legislatures of two of the States first above enumerated, to wit, Ohio and New Jersey, have since passed resolutions respectively withdrawing the consent of each of said States to the aforesaid amendment; and whereas it is deemed a matter of doubt and uncertainty whether such resolutions are not irregular, invalid, and therefore ineffectual for withdrawing the consent of the said two States, or of either of them, to the aforesaid amendment; And whereas the whole number of States in the United States is thirty-seven, to wit: [naming them]; And whereas the twenty-three States first hereinbefore named, whose legislatures have ratified the said proposed amendment, and the six States next thereafter named, as having ratified the said proposed amendment by newly constituted and established legislative bodies, together constitute three fourths of the whole number of States in the United States; Now, therefore, be it known that I, WILLIAM H. SEWARD, Secretary of State of the United States, by virtue and in pursuant of the second section of the act of Congress, approved the twentieth of April, eighteen hundred and eighteen, hereinbefore cited, do hereby certify that if the resolutions of the legislatures of Ohio and New Jersey ratifying the aforesaid amendment are to be deemed as remaining of full force and effect, notwithstanding the subsequent resolutions of the legislatures of those States, which purport to withdraw the consent of said States from such ratification, then the aforesaid amendment has been ratified in the manner hereinbefore mentioned, and so has become valid, to all intents and purposes, as a part of the Constitution of the United States.[3]
Congress was not satisfied with the proclamation as issued and on the next day passed a concurrent resolution wherein it was resolved "That said fourteenth article is hereby declared to be a part of the Constitution of the United States, and it shall be duly promulgated as such by the Secretary of State."[4] Thereupon, William H. Seward, the Secretary of State, after setting forth the concurrent resolution of both houses of Congress, then certified that the amendment "has become valid to all intents and purposes as a part of the Constitution of the United States."[5]

The Constitution of the United States is silent as to who should decide whether a proposed amendment has or has not been passed according to formal provisions of Article V of the Constitution. The Supreme Court of the United States is the ultimate authority on the meaning of the Constitution and has never hesitated in a proper case to declare an act of Congress unconstitutional except when the act purported to amend the Constitution.[6] The duty of the Secretary of State was ministerial, to wit,
https://law.justia.com/cases/utah/supreme-court/1968/11089-0.html

 

Spies v. Illinois, 123 U.S. 131
Supreme Court of the United States
Filed: November 2nd, 1887

Precedential Status: Precedential

Citations: 123 U.S. 131, 8 S. Ct. 22, 31 L. Ed. 80, 1887 U.S. LEXIS 2159

Docket Number: Unknown

Supreme Court Database ID: 1887-022

123 U.S. 131 (1887)
SPIES v. ILLINOIS.
Supreme Court of United States.

Argued October 27, 28, 1887. Decided November 2, 1887.
................................
In the present case we have had the benefit of argument in support of the application, and while counsel have not deemed it their duty to go fully into the merits of the Federal questions they suggest, they have shown us distinctly what the decisions were of which they complain, and how the questions arose. In this way we are able to determine as a court in session whether the errors alleged are such as to justify us in bringing the case here for review.

We proceed, then, to consider what the questions are on which, if it exists at all, our jurisdiction depends. They are thus stated in the opening brief of counsel for petitioners:

*165 "First. Petitioners challenged the validity of the statute of Illinois, under and pursuant to which the trial jury was selected and empanelled, on the ground of repugnancy to the Constitution of the United States, and the state court sustained the validity of the statute.

"Second. Petitioners asserted and claimed, under the Constitution of the United States, the right, privilege, and immunity of trial by an impartial jury, and the decision of the state court was against the right, privilege, and immunity so asserted and claimed.

"Third. The State of Illinois made, and the state court enforced against petitioners, a law (the aforesaid statute) whereby the privileges and immunities of petitioners, as citizens of the United States, were abridged, contrary to the Fourteenth Amendment of the Federal Constitution.

"Fourth. Upon their trial for a capital offence, petitioners were compelled by the state court to be witnesses against themselves, contrary to the provisions of the Constitution of the United States which declare that `no person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself,' and that `no person shall be deprived of life or liberty without due process of law.'

"Fifth. That by the action of the state court in said trial petitioners were denied `the equal protection of the laws,' contrary to the guaranty of the said Fourteenth Amendment of the Federal Constitution."

The particular provisions of the Constitution of the United States on which counsel rely are found in Articles IV, V, VI, and XIV of the Amendments, as follows:

"Art. IV. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated."

"Art. V. No person ... shall be compelled, in any criminal case, to be a witness against himself; nor be deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law."

"Art. VI. In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have *166 been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law."

"Art. XIV, § 1. 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."

That the first ten Articles of Amendment were not intended to limit the powers of the state governments in respect to their own people, but to operate on the National Government alone, was decided more than a half century ago, and that decision has been steadily adhered to since. Barron v. Baltimore, 7 Pet. 243, 247; Livingston v. Moore, 7 Pet. 469, 552; Fox v. Ohio, 5 How. 410, 434; Smith v. Maryland, 18 How. 71, 76; Withers v. Buckley, 20 How. 84, 91; Pervear v. The Commonwealth, 5 Wall. 475, 479; Twitchell v. The Commonwealth, 7 Wall. 321, 325; The Justices v. Murray, 9 Wall. 274, 278; Edwards v. Elliott, 21 Wall. 532, 557; Walker v. Sauvinet, 92 U.S. 90; United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 552; Pearson v. Yewdall, 95 U.S. 294, 296; Davidson v. New Orleans, 96 U.S. 97, 101; Kelly v. Pittsburg, 104 U.S. 78; Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252, 265.

It was contended, however, in argument, that, "though originally the first ten Amendments were adopted as limitations on Federal power, yet in so far as they secure and recognize fundamental rights, —common law rights of the man, they make them privileges and immunities of the man as a citizen of the United States, and cannot now be abridged by a State under the Fourteenth Amendment. In other words, while the ten Amendments as limitations on power only apply to the Federal Government, and not to the States, yet in so far as they declare or recognize rights of persons, these rights are theirs, as citizens of the United States, and the Fourteenth Amendment as to such rights limits state power, as the ten Amendments had limited Federal power."

It is also contended that the provision of the Fourteenth Amendment, which declares that no State shall deprive "any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law," implies that every person charged with crime in a State shall *167 be entitled to a trial by an impartial jury, and shall not be compelled to testify against himself.

The objections are in brief, 1, that a statute of the State as construed by the court deprived the petitioners of a trial by an impartial jury; and, 2, that Spies was compelled to give evidence against himself. Before considering whether the Constitution of the United States has the effect which is claimed, it is proper to inquire whether the Federal questions relied on in fact do arise on the face of this record.

The statute to which objection is made was approved March 12, 1874, and has been in force since July 1 of that year. Hurd's Rev. Stat. Ill. 1885, p. 752, c. 78, § 14. It is as follows: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/92032/spies-v-illinois/

14th?
Sorry will,
They were fresh out of democracy and representation and that lake dried up to a dust bed about 1868!

 

I don't need anyone to help me find a job. I can go door to door to companies that hire people with the skills I possess. Corporations could hire through the door and through employment agencies. They don't. So, corporations are subtly engaging in the promotion of slavery. You just slap a little lipstick on a pig and call it anything you like. I was forced to sell myself to a slave - owner in order to get a job. Period. Playing semantics doesn't change the bottom line. In this instance it is a form of involuntary servitude since you have no choice and you have to sign an adhesion contract to get a job.

Dude, you need an education. You'd argue with a tree stump.

 

A lot of white kids were "nabbed" and brought to the colonies to serve as slaves in the colonies. The term kidnapping came from the old tern nabbing a child. And they nabbed the children to be slaves.

https://psychology.wikia.org/wiki/Kidnapping

 

In layman terminology, the words unalienable and inalienable are synonyms. In law, they most assuredly are NOT.

Words are important as are legal concepts. I have to school you here because if you were to walk into a court-room with the wrong terminology and / or you allowed your legal counsel to use the wrong terminology you would lose your case. So, first, be forewarned, the courts interpret words to their legal application. Let me give you an example:

"Nearly every jurisdiction has held that the word "shall" is confusing because it can also mean "may, will or must." Legal reference books like the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure no longer use the word "shall." Even the Supreme Court ruled that when the word "shall" appears in statutes, it means "may."

www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/plain_language/articles/mandatory/

That is a government site to explain the decision of the United States Supreme Court holding. And, regardless of a thousand layman dictionaries, the holding of the United States Supreme Court has more authority than any layman definition of a word. BTW, the author of the above article is referencing Gutierrez de Martinez v. Lamagno,. 515 U.S. 417 (1995) although he / she does not say so. Now for your lesson:

"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." (an excerpt from the Declaration of Independence)

Now, here are a couple of court rulings on unalienable Rights:

“The absolute rights of individuals may be resolved into the right of personal security, the right of personal liberty, and the right to acquire and enjoy property. These rights are declared to be natural, inherent, and unalienable.” Atchison & N. R. Co. v. Baty, 6 Neb. 37, 40, 29 Am. Rep. 356 (1877)

“Men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,-'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;'and to 'secure,'not grant or create, these rights, governments are instituted" .” BUDD v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF NEW YORK, 143 U.S. 517 (1892)

When it comes to unalienable Rights, they are absolute; government does not grant them and cannot deprive you of them. The definition, in law, has never changed. AFTER the illegally ratified 14th Amendment, the United States Supreme Court wanted more and more power. They wanted to be in complete control. Remember that the United States Supreme Court ruled in Marbury v. Madison that THEY (NOT we, the people) were the final arbiters of what the law is. And so, when you used the word inalienable, you were wrong. You will not find the word inalienable being used by the United States Supreme Court to describe an absolute Right. However, watch this very closely and see how this holding applies to our discussion:

“Inalienable Rights which are not capable of being surrendered or transferred without the consent of the one possessing such rights” Morrison v. State, Mo. App., 252 S.W.2d 97, 101 (1952)


Can you see what the court just did? Unalienable is absolute. It CANNOT be transferred; it CANNOT be surrendered. An inalienable right can be transferred and / or surrendered. What that means is that your Creator bestowed upon you, at birth, unalienable Rights. Your inalienable rights are granted by the government through the 14th Amendment and can be taken away via your consent along with Due Process.

FWIW - You do realize that you just admitted to trolling. It shows that your position has no serious merit.

 

Your rationale is poor. We use the Democratic method directly to pick some of our government officials. That is using the Democratic method for a particular thing. that doesn't equate to the country being a democracy it can't be a democracy it's a constitutional republic.

 

What this all boils down to is that he's atheist. Which is fine people can be atheist, but that's not enough for him. Any mention of creator (even though he mentioned humans are built that way which implies a builder) causes him to feel some angst.

he will say you know I don't believe in that created which is fine you don't have to the concept still exist and he adheres to it because he thinks humans are built a certain way.

It's just the word creator.

You heard of cutting off your nose to spite your face, this is burning to death to spite someone else's face. He will throw away the concept of Rights because it requires him to accept the word creator as a concept.

This is indicative of how fragile his particular brand of atheism truly is.