There Are Two Classes Of Citizens, State And Federal, Because There Are Two Governments

 

Mandeville, LA – Exclusive Transcript – We have this alleged debate now going on over whether or not there’s an inherent, inalienable right to birthright citizenship.  This has inspired many people to come out of the closet and proclaim themselves as constitutional scholars, scholars of the founding.  Now we have a gentleman out there at The Federalist who is claiming that – I’ll read this to you.  How many of you will agree with the following statement?  Check out today’s transcript for the rest….

FOLKS, a message from Mike – The Audio Clip of The Day files, Project 76 feature presentations, Church Doctrine audio & video clips and everything else on this site are supported by YOU. We have over 70, of my personally designed, written, produced and directed products for sale in the Founders Tradin’ Post, 24/7,  here. You can also support our efforts with a Founders Pass membership granting total access to years of My work for just .17 cents per day. Not convinced? Take the tour! Thanks for 18 years of mike church.com! – Mike

HERE’S YOUR FREE AUDIO PREVIEW OF THIS CLIP OF THE DAY – TO HEAR THE ENTIRE EPISODE JOIN FOUNDERS PASS NOW! FOR HUNDREDS MORE CLIPS, VISIT THE CLIP OF THE DAY ARCHIVE HERE

Begin Mike Church Show Transcript

Mike:  I didn’t get to this yesterday because I knew I wasn’t going to have enough time.  That was the — I’m assuming that you can pull this up from yesterday.  Digital media file of Trump on O’Reilly with the tit for tat over the 14^th Amendment.  If you were to do an internet Google search or Yahoo search or a Bing search, or if you’re using one of the safe search engines, whatever search you would like, if you were to type in 14th Amendment and hit Search or go, whatever the case may be, you would retrieve hundreds of thousands of  articles, if opinion pieces, and other assorted nonsense that have been written in the last couple of days or the last week since Trumpzilla forced this

[private |FP-Monthly|FP-Yearly|FP-Yearly-WLK|FP-Yearly-So76|Founding Brother|Founding Father|FP-Lifetime]

issue, by being Trumpzilla, into the foreground.  This is a couple days back, of course.

We have this alleged debate now going on over whether or not there’s an inherent, inalienable right to birthright citizenship.  This has inspired many people to come out of the closet and proclaim themselves as constitutional scholars, scholars of the founding.  Now we have a gentleman out there at The Federalist who is claiming that – I’ll read this to you.  How many of you will agree with the following statement?  I’ll get you his name in just a moment here.  Here’s the headline.  See if you agree with this.  “Nothing Is More ‘Conservative’ Than Birthright Citizenship – Eliminating birthright citizenship means overthrowing the Constitution and the thousand-year history of English common law.”

I’m curious about this overthrowing the Constitution nonsense here.  How does eliminating something that the Constitution could not possibly have made legal and made the law of the land, therefore it’s not a part of the Constitution, how does that end or overthrow the Constitution?  I’d say that it’s probably closer to the truth that the very passage of the 14th Amendment overthrew the constitutional order.  It is not a coincidence that the radical Republican maniacs that were in control of the House of Representatives, in total control — I believe if we get a count on there, there were two Democrats in the Senate, one from New York, and in the House there were six.  They almost had veto-proof majorities.  Of course, that wasn’t enough, so they had to pass the 15th Amendment to try to rig the system so they’d have veto-proof majorities forever.  I’m getting off the subject here.

The radical Republicans that proposed the 14^th Amendment, as I demonstrated to you on Wednesday, they knew the limitations of what it was that they were doing.  They also knew that there were two clearly defined forms of citizenship.  There was a citizenship of a State and there was a citizenship of a union.  Folks, I feel like I have to explain this because I’m surrounded by imbeciles.  We are surrounded by imbeciles who don’t understand the simple character of a union of states.  We talk about first principles, ultimate causes, ultimate purposes on this show every single day, and they apply when it comes to the constitutional order as well.  This is why things are so out of order, because we have so deviated from these simple principles.

When I was reading Raoul Berger, from Government by Judiciary, the other day, I was walking you through almost an entire half a chapter from that book that I read.  It was almost all quotations.  Berger only filled the gaps in so that a twentieth-century reader could understand what it was that was being debated, and to add a little bit of narrative there.  It was almost all quotations.  We were hearing the voices of 1865, 1866 and then 1870 and 1871, the signal in important years of the 14th Amendment and how it was implemented.

In hearing those voices — let’s talk about getting the constitutional order right before we can even have this discussion.  In hearing those voices, I kept pointing out and I kept reading to you the spelling of the words.  Why was I reading to you the spelling of words?  Because it’s important.  Sometimes the spelling of words means things, like sometimes an intentional use of capitalization means something.  It signifies something to our intellect.  It tells us that word is capitalized so that might be somebody or something’s name.  Or it may be something’s title.  It may be something’s very proper designation.  I was reading to you from this, from that book and from all those great quotations in there.  In almost every instance where States was mentioned and it was capitalized, I told you.

Let’s ask the question: Why does States matter when we’re talking about 14th Amendment, constitutional order, Donald Trump, and whoever else wants to discuss this?  Why does that matter?  Here’s why it matters.  What was Mrs. Clinton — I’ll bring Paul in on this since it’s a Friday and I’ve talked enough for the rest of my life this week.  Paul, what was Mrs. Clinton’s title when she worked for President Obama?  What did she do?  She was the secretary of what?

Paul:  Of State.

Mike:  Do you imagine if you were reading that today and there was a diploma hanging on her wall designating her as such, do you imagine that the S would be capitalized?

Paul:  It would be. [/private]

Mike:  She was Secretary of State.  This is important.  What does the Secretary of State do?  Let’s bring this in the 18th century parlance.  What is a word that is synonymous for State?  Class, anyone out there?  What’s a word that’s synonymous with state in the 18th century?  Country.  Country, State, totally interchangeable.  You’re the Secretary of State of the United States.  We may have received the Secretary of State from France, the Secretary of State, if they had one, from Spain.  Of course, they had other titles they could have used like Minister Plenipotentiary but we won’t get into that.

The point is that when Mrs. Clinton was, and today Senator John “Rambo” Kerry is the Secretary of State.  What State is it that he is the secretary of?  It is the State of the union, the government, which is a union government, that represents constituent states.  We cannot discuss any of these issues about citizenship and immigration until we can get this fundamental point correct.  When Secretary Kerry is acting as Secretary of State, he is acting with the powers that have been granted to the federal government as the agent of States.  It’s very simple, very easy to understand.

Think of it like this, when the NFL decides that they are going to do one of their rule changes or they’re going to do something that is going to apply to all the teams in their league, the commissioner of the NFL or one of his underlings acts on behalf of all the teams of the NFL.  Or Major League Baseball or the National Hockey League or the NBA, whatever the case may be, the commissioners generally act on behalf of all the teams.  That’s not to say that the NBA itself is a basketball team.  It’s not.  The NFL office in New York is not a football team.  The New Orleans Saints are a football team.  The Carolina Panthers are a football team.  The San Francisco 49ers are a football team.  They are a member in the union of football teams known as the National Football League.  There are certain things that they agree to when they join that union that the NFL, which is not a football team — it’s the agent of the football team — that the NFL is going to do on their behalf, like negotiate television contracts, for example.

End Mike Church Show Transcript