Black People : Why Must Our Right To Vote - Be Voted On?

Discussion in 'Black People Open Forum' started by Destee, Jul 27, 2006.

  1. Destee

    Destee destee.com STAFF

    Country:
    United States
    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2001
    Messages:
    34,792
    Likes Received:
    8,985
    Gender:
    Female
    Location:
    betwixt and between
    Ratings:
    +9,686
    Peace and Blessings Family,

    The article below highlights the fact that Bush will be signing this voting rights act thingy today.

    Tell me, why must there be something voted on periodically to insure our right to vote? 33 politicians voted against us.

    Why don't they just give it a million year span, and call it a day?

    Why are they going to have to vote on this again in 25 years (according to the article)?

    Can someone help me understand why this is?


    :heart:

    Destee
     
  2. Sefirot

    Sefirot Well-Known Member MEMBER

    Country:
    United States
    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2006
    Messages:
    350
    Likes Received:
    14
    Occupation:
    Teacher
    Location:
    Chicago, IL/Atlanta, GA
    Ratings:
    +14
    We prefer to passively follow. It's more comfortable.

    Even if it's a corrupt system after which we trail, actively taking a stand, leading, and insisting would appear to take too much time and thought.

    Control of our lives and minds is not a concept common to us as of late.

    "Nothing pains some men more than to have to think."~MLK
     
  3. Keita Kenyatta

    Keita Kenyatta going above and beyond PREMIUM MEMBER

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2004
    Messages:
    5,642
    Likes Received:
    3,328
    Gender:
    Male
    Ratings:
    +3,382
    How about the fact that no black person in this country is legally a citizen ?!! With that being the case, it's only natural that a vote must be taken to see if our oppressor is going to GRANT US ANY RIGHTS. Now that wasn't too hard too see, was it?...or are we still buying into the sham that we are citizens?...which is it ?

    You may be asking me, "how do I know?" I know because two thirds of the house had to vote in order for it to become legal law. They told us it was passed, but the judicial fact of the matter is that two people were absent on the day of the vote, thereby nullifying the process requiring two thirds in order to pass.
     
  4. Slowly

    Slowly Well-Known Member MEMBER

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2006
    Messages:
    405
    Likes Received:
    8
    Occupation:
    electronic technician
    Location:
    Pacific NW
    Ratings:
    +8
    From what I've been reading about it, We no longer need that Act. The 15th Ammendent guarantees Our right to vote. What the Voting Rights Act does is prevent the KKK from hanging out at the polling places.
     
  5. Keita Kenyatta

    Keita Kenyatta going above and beyond PREMIUM MEMBER

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2004
    Messages:
    5,642
    Likes Received:
    3,328
    Gender:
    Male
    Ratings:
    +3,382
    I appreciate those who do research but do not actually DO RESEARCH...SO HERE WE GO....AND MORE CAN COME IF NEEDED.
    "African-Americans"
    Are not citizens of the United States



    The biggest legal fraud in US history isn't the Federal Reserve's usurpation of the Congressional power to coin money and to regulate its value. That's only the second biggest fraud. The biggest fraud is the 14th Amendment. I'll save you the trouble of looking it up.

    AMENDMENT FOURTEEN. (Not law. Fraudulently promulgated on 28 July 1868.)

    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.

    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 Vice-President 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.

    SECTION 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President or Vice-President, 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.

    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.

    SECTION 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

    The 14th Amendment never became law because it was never ratified by three-fourths of the states, which is a condition that proposed constitutional amendments must satisfy as a prerequisite to becoming law. That requirement is given in Article Five. The proposed 14th Amendment was rejected by the elected legislatures of enough states that it FAILED to become law.

    The US government had just finished suppressing a rebellion of some of the states, and in the process had stripped them of their sovereignty that had been recognized up until the Civil War. Forcibly reincorporated into the United States, the formerly rebel states nonetheless had a right to vote on the ratification of any proposed amendment to the national constitution.

    When the states rejected the 14th Amendment, which the national government (and the Jewish banking houses) greatly wanted, the national government took the attitude that it did not have to take "no" for an answer. It sent soldiers into the states that had not voted in the desired way, kidnapped their lawfully elected legislative bodies, and substituted hand-picked gangs of stooges who went through the pretense of ratifying the 14th Amendment.

    By this kind of legal circus, involving the most outrageous violation of the rights of the American people, the 14th Amendment came to be imposed on us. It wasn't a ratification at all, but a usurpation of the constitutional process of ratification: a rubberstamping directed by a national government that no longer respected the legal limits of its own powers.

    What happened in 1868 with respect to the 14th Amendment had no more validity than a false confession signed by someone in the hopes of escaping torture. It had no more validity than an election has, in which a soldier points a gun at each voter and tells him which candidate he must vote for—or else be shot. The states did not ratify the 14th Amendment. The federal army merely created the illusion of ratification. And without the consent of the required number of states, the 14th Amendment never became a part of the U.S. Constitution.

    ARTICLE FIVE. (Law. Ratified 4 March 1789.)

    The Congress, whenever two-thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two-thirds of the several States, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which in either case shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States, or by conventions in three-fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the Ninth Section of the First Article; and that no State, without its consent shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the State.

    There are no substitutes for ratification. The US Supreme Court can't wave a judicial magic wand and convert a proposed amendment into an actual one. But the Court did create the pretense that it can and has done so. The pretense is papered over by the commonly believed fiction that the 14th Amendment was ratified as the Constitution requires in Article 5.

    Occasionally, this lie is taught in the public schools, but more often the matter of ratification is quietly omitted from school curricula. No such thing happened; an actual, legal ratification never took place. The 14th Amendment has remained, legally, a proposed Amendment since 1868. It has been fraudulently accredited with enforceability for 135 years. Men with guns have been enforcing this treasonous fraud under color of law for that long, and the U.S. Supreme Court has been an accessory to it. When National Guard soldiers herded White school children into their racially integrated schools at the points of their bayonets (for example, at Little Rock), they were breaking the law. They didn't care; they were following their orders.

    Every soldier, during his training, is given a little speech about how he must not obey illegal orders. The soldier duly listens to his instructor with a solemn expression. But if the soldier's ambition is greater than his patriotism (which is the case for most of them), he's thinking to himself—"Riiight. I know what the score is, and I didn't come here to stick my neck out over principles."

    The three branches of the United States government perpetrated this fraud on the citizens of the United States to give pretext for a whole forest of subordinate, pursuant, and dependent laws that are likewise and equally invalid. If the Supreme Court could amend the Constitution by itself, there would be no reason to have the Congress even propose the changes to be made. And if the Supreme Court could change the supreme law of the land by itself, then it follows that it could enact any lesser law, too, and there would be no need for the United States to have any legislature at all. But the power to make laws was given to the Congress, not to the Supreme Court; and the power to change the Constitution was given to the states, not to the Supreme Court.

    The bogus imposition of the 14th Amendment was a precursor of the "living document" theory of Constitutional law, by which activist U.S. Justices alter the fundamental laws of the land upon their mutual whims and corrupt the very concept of limited government that a Constitution implies. The corruption goes on today, except that the invalid (but all-too-evidently enforced) changes in Constitutional meaning don't get added formally to the document; they are written in the opinions of the Justices making the changes. These opinions count as law where enforcement is reckoned, but they don't count as law when legislative authorization is reckoned. That is, the citizenry have imposed on them laws (in the practical sense of penalties for non-compliance) that are not laws (in the legal sense of having legislative sanction). The liberals' power lies in this contradiction, and mentioning that contradiction in a political debate is the surest way to make liberals hem and haw.

    Certain provisions of the 14th Amendment are laws, but only because they are redundant echos of provisions already made in earlier parts of the Constitution. For example, it is true that no state may deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law, since that much was established by the Fifth Amendment, which was ratified per Article Five and is therefore a valid law. But...

    It is NOT TRUE that everyone born within the jurisdiction of the United States, and subject to its jurisdiction, is a citizen of the United States. That provision occurs only in the 14th Amendment, which was not ratified and is not law.

    It is NOT TRUE that the states are required to treat every person as equal before the law. The "equal protection" clause occurs only in the 14th Amendment, which was not ratified and is not law.

    It is NOT TRUE that the representation of a state in Congress must be reduced unless the non-White adult males therein are allowed to vote. That provision occurs only in the 14th Amendment, which was not ratified and is not law.

    It is NOT TRUE that rebels against governmental authority are legally disabled from holding a governmental post unless Congress removes that disability. That provision occurs only in the 14th Amendment, which was not ratified and is not law.

    Someone who goes so far as to wage war against the United States is a traitor under definition given in Article 3, Section 3. However, you can criticize the government all you like, and you can propose that the government has become a tyranny in need of being overthrown, too. You don't get to be a traitor unless you wage war against the country, or help someone else do so.

    The U.S. government, itself, may be charged with treason for waging war against the country. The Civil War was treason. Anyone (including a President) who engages a state, or several states, in war is a traitor, unless that state or those states made the first attack. The South didn't attack the North, however; they'd simply decided that they would rather go their way in peace to form a new country more to their liking. The first attack was made by the North, at Lincoln's command, and therefore Abraham Lincoln, whatever his finer qualities might have been, was a traitor to his country. Article 3, Section 3 says:

    ARTICLE 3, SECTION 3. (Law. Ratified 4 March 1789.)

    (1) 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.

    (2) The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood or forfeiture except during the life of the person attained.

    Here we see a weakness of our constitutional form of government. The Congress has the power to declare the punishment for treason. What if the Congress, collectively, is the traitor? You don't have to look to the Civil War to find an example of treason—though, of course, you may. Enforcing a non-ratified Amendment on citizens of the United States, imposing on them burdens by legislative fraud, is an act of war against them. It is treason.

    Finally, it is NOT TRUE that the public debt of the United States may not be questioned legally. This provision of the 14th Amendment would make it illegal for the United States to repudiate its debt. It was enacted, shortly after the Civil War, in order to safeguard the international moneylenders from a legislative escape from indebtedness (thus from Jewish financial control) by the United States. It occurs only in the 14th Amendment, which was not ratified and is not law.

    The 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments were enacted partly to set Negroes up as a weapon against White Americans, and, as the reader may easily notice, were also intended to perform certain other custodial chores on behalf of the Jewish bankers. These were the first Amendments to include, at the end, the provision: "The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article." This final section gives Congress advance permission to write whatever laws they decide are required to pursue the Amendment's objectives, and it leads to a whole galaxy of laws and regulations that restrict the rights of Americans and subject them to burdens that are not rightly theirs to bear.

    The 13th Amendment abolished slavery. It did not make citizens of Negroes.

    The 15th Amendment prohibited government from preventing ANY CITIZEN from voting because of his "race, color, or previous condition of servitude." It did not make citizens of Negroes. Someone resident in the United States, but not a citizen thereof, would not have the right to vote, regardless of his race.

    It is the 14th Amendment that allegedly makes citizens of Negroes. But the 14th Amendment was never ratified. An Amendment that has not been ratified is not law. Enforcement of, or legislation pursuant to, such an Amendment is certainly fraud and may be treason. (In this case, it certainly is treason against legitimate citizens of the United States that their rights have been diluted or denied through fraud.)

    Negroes are not citizens. Every election in which they have voted is tainted. The U.S. government stopped being a legitimate government with the first national election in which the illegal votes of Black voters were counted.

    Also, every Mexican whose mother trotted north of the Rio Grande just before birthing, who thinks that therefore her child is a U.S. citizen, is wrong.

    There is no valid law preventing "insurrection" against the United States government today; there is only the preponderance of military power at the disposal of that government. The United States government is corrupted, and it is treasonous, but it is powerful. It should be overthrown, and there should be a responsible organization of White people with the means to do it. When there is such an organization, let them not hesitate.



    14


    "In order for an amendment to be made to the Constitution, it must be ratified." Mr. Wiley faced his class of high school students. "Ratification is defined in Article Five of the Constitution as the approval in at least three-quarters of the states of the Union, either in their legislatures or by constitutional conventions."

    The students seemed to be absorbing this lesson remarkably well, thought Mr. Wiley to himself. They are more alert than usual. None of the kids is yawning, as they often do. I wish they were this attentive all the time. On the other hand, I wonder what--

    A student in the back row of seats suddenly stood up. Mr. Wiley inwardly cringed. Jerry Abbott was one of the brighter kids who had breezed his way through his schoolwork, but he was a notorious smartass who liked to probe crudely into delicate matters.

    "Mr. Abbott, did you stand up for a reason?"

    "Yes, sir. You seldom notice when I raise my hand, and I wanted to ask you some questions."

    "Are they relevant questions?" Mr. Wiley was hoping that they were not.

    "Yes, sir. They relate to the subject that you were just now teaching us."

    "Very well, then, Mr. Abbott," sighed the teacher. "You may ask."

    "Thank you, sir. First, let me say that since you are also a judge in this county, you are perhaps the man best suited to be teaching this class."

    "How uncommonly gracious of you to say so." Mr. Wiley noticed a number of grins. One boy nudged another.

    "Not at all. My first question is this: Are there any substitutes for ratification? That is, can a proposed amendment become a part of the Constitution by any other means?"

    "No, Mr. Abbott. That is impossible. An amendment is not legal until it is ratified."

    "My second question, Mr. Wiley, is this: Are there any alternative methods for ratification, other than the two named in Article Five?"

    "None that I know of."

    "And so all of the constitutional amendments that are now law had to have been ratified at some point?"

    "Yes, Mr. Abbott. That is elementary in the theory of law."

    "Which of those ratification methods was used for the Fourteenth Amendment?"

    Uh oh.





    15


    "I'm not certain about that, Mr. Abbott. Maybe you can look it up in a library and tell me about it tomorrow?"

    "I did try to look it up, sir. It seems that shortly after the Civil War, the federal government cheated in the ratification process in the South, by ensuring an outcome that did not involve the actual consent of the people. Is it possible that the 14th Amendment was never legally ratified?"

    "Oh, I doubt that. Probably you just didn't look hard enough."

    "I've looked plenty hard enough. The 14th Amendment was never ratified."

    "By what authority do you make that claim, young man?

    "By my own common sense, which tells me that the ratification of the 14th Amendment should be no more difficult to verify than the ratification of any other amendment."

    "Do you have any idea of what your 'theory' would mean for this country?"

    "Yes, sir. I do. It means that the older definition of citizenship is still valid, except as it has been amended by Amendments that were ratified. This means, among other things, that Blacks are not citizens and that, therefore, their votes are illegal and may not be counted. It means that the government of the United States disqualified itself from rule by the first election in which the votes of Blacks were fraudulently counted. It means that the enforcement of the provisions of the 14th Amendment against the interests of the legitimate citizenry is tantamount to waging war against this country, and is therefore treason within the meaning of Article 3, section 3."

    The classroom broke out in laughter. But it was directed at the obvious discomfiture of the teacher, and not at the ideas set forth by their comrade.

    "Mister Abbott! I shall have to report you to the principal for racism!

    "As that is an honorable distinction, sir, I shall not mind."

    Again the classroom vibrated with gales of laughter.

    "The 13th Amendment freed the slaves," the teacher said.

    "But it did not give them citizenship," said Jerry.

    "The 15th Amendment gave them the vote."

    "Wrong, sir. It prohibited the states from preventing citizens from voting. It did not give citizenship to Blacks."

    "Listen, young man. Blacks are citizens of the United States.

    "No, sir! They are not. It is the 14th Amendment that was claimed to have given citizenship to Blacks. Not the thirteenth. Not the fifteenth. But the 14th Amendment was never ratified. Therefore it is not law. Therefore Blacks are not now, nor have they ever been, citizens of the United States."





    Jerry's Posts Index Page
     
  6. Slowly

    Slowly Well-Known Member MEMBER

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2006
    Messages:
    405
    Likes Received:
    8
    Occupation:
    electronic technician
    Location:
    Pacific NW
    Ratings:
    +8
    SAY WHAT!:censored: Wasn't it ratified in 1868?
     
  7. Omowale Jabali

    Omowale Jabali The Cosmic Journeyman PREMIUM MEMBER

    Country:
    United States
    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2005
    Messages:
    21,179
    Likes Received:
    9,463
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Creative Industrialist
    Location:
    Temple of Kali, Yubaland
    Ratings:
    +9,585
    For sure the 14th amendment did not apply to those ("Black Indians") who lived in Indian territory before "statehood" and who later did not sign the Dawes Rolls. Additionally, the rest of so-called "State Negroes" if the 14th Amendment granted FULL citizenship rights there would have been any need for the EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE of the u.s. constitution and no need for later voting rights acts.

    Brother Keita is absolutely correct on this one!!

    Furthermore, even the emancipation proclamation only granted citizenship rights to former SLAVES who were "not in rebellion" so this did not apply to Blacks such as the "Seminoles" who had earlier left and moved to Oklahoma, Texas, or Mexico, or Free Persons of Color from the Louisiana territory who also had migrated to Texas or Mexico when Louisiana joined the "union". This is why the "grandfather clause" was so effective, along with the Dawes Act, in furthering Jim Crow because not only were many of our Elders disenfranchised by the local and state governments, but those who had state rights lost those rights which resulted in them losing ALL citizenship rights. There are some so-called "Black Indians" who realize this and have been fighting court battles to re-claim their ancestral rights to the Creek and Seminole Nations, some going back to the Yamasse in Georgia, only to find they have NO RIGHTS, and this is what has happened to the Wa'shi'taw and Nuwabbians resulting in the u.s. government seizing more of their ancestral and hereditary lands.
     
  8. I-khan

    I-khan Well-Known Member MEMBER

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2005
    Messages:
    1,344
    Likes Received:
    46
    Ratings:
    +47
    great post, I tried to explain before. But I guess politix does not detemine what one can call themselves (ie self determination)

    Voted on to keep a people who are heavily divided to stay that way as well as on a dependency (politically and economically,for the most part)....the government does the same in afruaka with the "humanitarian aid" that is play in western media...
     
  9. Moorfius

    Moorfius Well-Known Member MEMBER

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2004
    Messages:
    699
    Likes Received:
    25
    Occupation:
    Self Employed
    Location:
    Earth
    Ratings:
    +27
    Question is Why?.........The Answer is...A Slave is at the Lack of Mercy of the Masa*

    Hotep

    We have been told, tuged and warned by meny who are concerned enough to give those who don't know a wake up call...but most of us refuse to hear until it is too late. Section #1 and Article #2 of the "Constatution of the United States" reads...The Negro is 3/5ths (three fiths) of a hu-man! In other words...the very "Foundation" of this country does not concider (You) Africans to be full Hue-Mans!! What more do "We" need to answer this question of why we don't or won't have the so-called "Right" to do any thing let alone "Vote" if we don't wake up very soon* November of 2007...(Negro vote-ing Rights Bill Expires)...no "Negro" in the U.S.A. will have a right to vote. The government controlers...as of today have refused to "Re-instate" the voting rights bill.

    Right here we...as Africans in America...should ask our self...why do we pay Taxes if we can not vote? Why do we die in wars if we can't vote? Who is take-ing our (collective wealth) tax dollars and what are they doing with it...if we don't have the right to vote? What is our true worth as a member of this country if we don't have at least the right to vote? Why do we continue to allow so-called white people to control our very lives and the lives of our children??? The recent "Europian Union" heald in "Geniva" in 2005 by "Whites-Only" countries has taken it apon them selves to determin that the "World" as they call it is over populated and that they must devise ways and means to eliminate at least a 1/3...one third of the "Words-Population" by any means nesassary...this mean YOU and your black babies...because you are not "United" and don't have any one to protect "YOU"!! And Jesus Christ will not be able to do any thing what so ever because that is the concoction of the same people who are planing your "Useles"...accourding to them..."DISTRUCTION"!!....Wake Up...Wake Up!!...Wake Up!!

    There is a childs story about the "Grass Hopper" and the Ant".
    The ant worked all summer...while the grass hopper played.
    The ant stored up food in its shelter to survive the long winter.
    The grass hopper played and played and continued to play while laughing at the ant for working soo hard.
    The ant said to the grass hopper..."you better wake up and stop play-ing and get ready for winter"...it will be here sooner than you think!
    The foolish and stubern grass hopper only made excuses for its lack of plans to survive the winter. Perhaps the grass hopper thought the ant was going to "Give" its hard earned food away...get something for nothing as a fool would think.
    Finaly "Winter" came and there was no more food to eat, the grass hopper starved, froze and died...because of its lack of preperation to survive the future.
    The ant lived underground with all the food it saved and needed...over the summer and was happy, safe, warm and alive becaue its plan was wise. PEOPLE KNOW THY SELF*

    Ase`

    Proverb: A wise person changes often but a fool stays the same. Additional note: The ant lives in "Unified" families...while the grass hopper lives alone and only thinks about its self...doing its own thing*
     
  10. queentswana

    queentswana Well-Known Member MEMBER

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2004
    Messages:
    7,007
    Likes Received:
    161
    Occupation:
    day care provider (own business)
    Location:
    Brick City
    Ratings:
    +162
    no truer words have been stated concerning our people.
     
Loading...