During his Constitutional Law course, UVA Law professor Bertrall Ross discusses the history of the 13th and 14th Amendments, the Dred Scott case and the Slaughter-House cases. (University of Virginia School of Law, June 11, 2024)
Пікірлер: 2
@Marcus41029 күн бұрын
Very informative !!!
@TheseusTitan24 күн бұрын
Comparing the federal and state governments; it’s like watching two wolves argue to which one is going to eat you. The excuse that state governments can’t regulate themselves is similar if not equal to the federal government having the same ailment. If you read the 14th amendment, the word “person” appears in the first paragraph. The document has been misunderstood because of this, the word “person” doesn’t mean a living man as we would expect. Back in 1862 congress convened and they redefined the word “person” under 26 U.S. Code § 7701 - Definitions. (1) Person The term “person” shall be construed to mean and include an individual, a trust, estate, partnership, association, company or corporation. These are all business structures used in a commercial venue. Read the 14th amendment with a person meaning a fiction. Since congress did not express a different definition in the 14th amendment, the word person would be interpreted as defined in this title and code. Think about how many times the word person or the choices of what congress lists as categories appear in government documents. Typically, people, including attorneys, have no idea what they are signing or agreeing to. In the late 1880s corporations sued for the rights of a “person”. One more point… the south vacated their offices in 1860. Did congress have a quorum? Were they congress or did they only impersonate the body of congress? If they weren’t a congress then every writ they authored is null and void… or this isn’t the same form of government and they successfully changed our republic to some other form of government.