B. Charles Reynolds
c/o General Delivery
Seward 99664
Alaska, USA
2009 February 03
President Barack Obama
c/o The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington 20500
District of Columbia, USA
President Obama:
The sovereignty of the several states have been called to question numerous times in the federal court system. Most of those cases revolve around linguistic ambiguities in the 14th Amendment to the Constitution for the United States of America. The Supreme Court of Utah, in the case of Dyett v. Turner [439 P.2d 266, 270 (1968)], documented several anomalies in the process of ratifying the 14th Amendment. These irregularities were also read into the Congressional Record [House - June 13, 1967 at pages 15641-15646] and were never acted upon. The question remains whether the 14th Amendment was ever properly ratified. The Supreme Court of the United States of America has refused to rule on the matter, calling it a “political matter.”
The 14th Amendment arguably removes the sovereignty of the several states with regard to citizenship (and, by extension, legislative authority) and places all citizenship status firmly under the sovereignty of the United States in its role as a corporate ruler of its own territories such as the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, etc. If the several states cannot be allowed their own citizens, then to whom or what do their laws apply? Prior to the 14th Amendment, the Constitution for the United States of America was very clear that all citizenship status belonged firmly in the hands of the several states. This removes, also, the suffrage rights of the citizens of the several states because there are none (State citizens)! Since our right to vote is central to our republican form of government, it is essential that this question of sovereignty be put to rest for once and ever.
I need not remind you that the 14th Amendment also ended aparthied in this country. However, it did so in such a devious and underhanded way as to make it unacceptable. An alternative, more acceptable Amendment, would be, substantially, “The several States may neither refuse nor deny the natural rights of citizens based on race, creed or religion.” Such a simple statement is all that was required for the 14th Amendment to end aparthied and insure that no citizen whether black, mexican, chinese, hindu, wiccan, jewish, democrat, republican, libertarian or other could be denied their natural-born rights as protected by (not granted by) the Constitution for the United States of America.
To finally put to rest the question, would you please either 1) propose a Constitutional Amendment in repeal of the questionably-ratified 14th Amendment or, 2) propose a Demand that the U.S. Supreme Court render a ruling? Support can probably be found from Utah, New Jersey, Oregon, Texas, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, North Carolina, Arkansas, South Carolina, Kentucky, Virginia, Louisiana, Delaware, Maryland, Mississippi and Ohio. Most of those southern states listed reversed their Rejection of the proposed amendment under military occupation (see Reconstruction Act) and also were denied representation in both the House and Senate during the initial proposal of the Amendment.
Consider: Did the founding fathers indend for there to be several sovereign states, united? Or... Did they intend for there to be one national government with sovereignty over the population of the several states, as exists now if the 14th Amendment has been properly ratified? Have you looked at a voter registration application? I mean really looked and studied the implications of the following question, which appears on every voter registration application in every state in the Union: “Are you a citizen of the United States?” If that question is answered in the positive, then the individual who signs that form is, effectively, volunteering to become a federal subject. It would be better for the question to be: “Are you a citizen of one of the United States?”
A state citizen receives all the benefits and protections of both his/her state constitution and the Constitution for the United States of America. A state citizen gets the best of both worlds. A federal subject, on the other hand, get no protections of any constitution because the federal Congress can make any legislation, even legislation in blatant violation of the protections in the Constitution for the United States of America, within the territories it has sovereignty over. The Constitution for the United States of America places no restrictions on the power of the federal government - whether legislative, judicial or executive - within its own demesne, nor protections of the natural-born rights of its subjects.
Thank you for your time. I'm sure you will give this very serious consideration.
B. Charles Reynolds
Citizen of the Sovereign republic of Alaska