One of the most disconcerting \u201cfacts of life\u201d in our new MAGA world, is the complete disregard for the Constitution of the United States. For decades, even for centuries, we learned the meaning of the Constitution. We KNEW what the authors of the Constitution and the Amendments intended. They were prolific writers, and felt the need in their Age of Enlightenment to explain their reasoning, and to have it examined by others. Jefferson, Madison, Hamilton and others put their thoughts to paper, and challenged others to debate and discuss. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
The \u201cfounding fathers\u201d of the Project 2025 playbook for the alteration of American society, all claim that they are \u201coriginalists\u201d, following in \u201cBlack Letter\u201d obedience the original intent of the Founding Authors. But when that original intent somehow doesn\u2019t \u201cfit\u201d their own warped interpretation of America, they go back and \u201calter\u201d the original intent. It\u2019s historically fraudulent, an act that the Enlightened leaders would find academically abhorrent. But that\u2019s what\u2019s happening.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The biggest \u201clie\u201d is that the United States was founded as a \u201cChristian Nation\u201d under Christian principles. Here are the facts. The authors of the Constitution were generally Christians. But they were also the direct descendants of those who fled Europe searching for religious freedom. John Adams, a very religious man, had great-grandparents who were original Puritan settlers in Massachusetts. They fled religious tyranny of the Church of England. Religious freedom was embedded in his heritage. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Thomas Jefferson himself, while a \u201cstandard\u201d Anglican, wrote about his departure from Christian theology. His concepts, shared in the Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom, exalted the freedom of men to make up their own mind about religion, and called for government to stay out of religious affairs. Jefferson created the concept of a \u201cwall\u201d between church and state, a \u201cwall\u201d that has been chipped away by recent Federalist Society Judges\u2019 opinions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
But there are a lot of even clearer MAGA precepts that disregard the \u201cblack letter\u201d intent of the Founders. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
The Founding Fathers had a clear concept of who was \u201cpart\u201d of the United States. There were \u201cfree people\u201d, those not owned by others and not under a term of contract (indentured servitude, or contractual enslavement). Within that class of \u201cfree people\u201d were citizens: those who could vote in the state and national elections. For example, an emancipated Black person would be a \u201cfree person\u201d, but not qualify as a citizen in many states. Women may or may not be citizens, but they were \u201cfree people\u201d. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Then there were enslaved people, who were owned by others. In a purely political compromise, they were considered three-fifths of a person for counting, and for taxation purposes. But they were not \u201cfree\u201d nor \u201cthree-fifths of a citizen\u201d. They were enslaved.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
And finally there were Indians. They were not citizens, and not counted as \u201cfree people\u201d, because they were considered members of separate nations, the Indian nations. That\u2019s also why the United States would make treaties with Indian tribes (almost always broken). Indians were treated as Nations; the United States often waged war against them. When we see Palestinians starving in Gaza, keep in mind that the avowed US strategy against the Plains Indian tribes was to destroy the buffalo and create starvation. That forced the tribes onto government reservations. (This was the strategy of Ohio\u2019s own General Phil Sheridan). The Israelis aren\u2019t the first to choose such a horrific path.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Article 1, Section 2 of the Constitution provides for an \u201cenumeration\u201d of the people of the United States, for the purpose of determining the number of seats in the House of Representatives each state will get. That enumeration (the census) is clearly defined:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u2026which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other persons.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n Who gets counted? It\u2019s a simple math equation: free persons (including indentured servants) and three fifths of other persons (enslaved folks). Who doesn\u2019t count \u2013 Indians. So when the President, or the Heritage Society, claims that only \u201ccitizens\u201d should be counted, that\u2019s simply not what Mr. Madison and the Constitutional Convention said, or meant. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Free persons are simply that, free. They may or may not be \u201cdocumented persons\u201d in our current ICE-terrified world, but they are free. Therefore, they are subject to being enumerated, and that enumeration is used to determine representation. Don\u2019t like it? As the MAGA world is fond of saying about the Second Amendment (another mis-interpreted Madisonian concept) \u2013 then change it. Article V of the Constitution lays out two separate paths to making those changes, called Amendments.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Once we get the concept of free persons versus citizens, there are several other Constitutional areas that become clear. The Fourth Amendment, protecting against governmental search and seizures, states that it applies to \u201cthe people\u201d. That\u2019s the same as \u201cfree persons\u201d, and not the same as citizens. So undocumented migrants in the United States aren\u2019t citizens, but they are \u201cfree people\u201d and therefore covered.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The same is true about the Fifth, Sixth and Eighth Amendments that create protections in criminal prosecutions. Those again guarantee that \u201cno persons\u201d shall be denied their rights. When the MAGA-world rejoices at the ICE “round-ups” and “detention centers”, they are in direct contradiction of the criminal rights of the Constitution – granted to persons, (not just citizens). <\/p>\n\n\n\n And then there\u2019s the mighty Fourteenth Amendment, which starts with the phrase: \u201cAll 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.\u201d We already know what the phrase \u201call persons\u201d means. <\/p>\n\n\n\n And then the Fourteenth applied Federal law to the actions of the states: \u201c\u2026 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.\u201d There\u2019s that pesky \u201cany person\u201d thing again. There\u2019s no exception for the \u201cundocumented\u201d; those who might have entered the United States without permission. They still remain \u201ca person\u201d under Constitutional definition.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This doesn\u2019t just apply to rights, but the concept of birthright citizenship. The authors of the Fourteenth were well aware of what \u201call persons\u201d meant, and knew what \u201cborn\u201d meant as well. Arguing that immigration status (other than diplomatic status) could determine birth citizenship is totally foreign to the \u201cblack letter law\u201d of the Constitution, as well as the intent of those that wrote the Fourteenth.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Black Letter Law of the US Constitution is clear. What isn\u2019t clear is whether we allow these so-called \u201cOriginalists\u201d to change America\u2019s origin story to fit their own nefarious plans.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n That\u2019s un-American, and so are they.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"Free Persons<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Born in the USA<\/h2>\n\n\n\n