People's rights vs citizen's rights
Are you one of the People of the United States, as contemplated by the U.S. Constitution Preamble?
Or, are you one of the citizens of the United States, as defined in the U.S. Constitution 14th Amendment?
Your answer affects the rights you have.
If you are one of the People of the United States, then all ten amendments are available to you.
You have natural rights.
If you are a citizen of the United States, then you have civil rights [properly called civil privileges].
See Senate Document 108-17, p. 1006, 1007, Footnote 37 [in part below], for details summarized here.
|Amendments available to U.S. citizens:
(free exercise, establishment)
4: Search and seizure
5: Double jeopardy
6: (protection has been diluted)
8: Cruel and unusual punishment
Notice of charges
|Amendments not available to U.S. Citizens:|
2: Right to keep and bear arms
3: Quartering troops in homes
5: Grand Jury indictment
7: Jury trial in civil cases
8: Bail (mostly)
Excessive fines under equal protection
Senate Document 108-17, Constitution of the United States of America: Analysis and Interpretation documents the legal effect of your answer. This document and subsequent revisions is given free to all elected and past senators, members of congress, and vice presidents, delegates, and resident commissioners upon timely request to the Government Printing Office. Online access HERE
The doctrine of selective incorporation is the dominant doctrine for incorporating portions of the Bill of Rights for application to citizens of the United States.
One may purchase a copy from the U.S. Goverment Printing Office for $226; STOCK # 052-071-01421-7 (later issues may have a different stock number, price subject to change.)
For related information, see Republic versus Democracy
and DEFINITION and explanation: What is a Republic?
The Constitution for the United States of America, Analysis and Interpretation Senate Document 108-17, Page 1006-1007, Footnote 37 The following list does not attempt to distinguish between those Bill of Rights provisions which have been held to have themselves been incorporated or absorbed by the Fourteenth Amendment and those provisions which the Court indicated at the time were applicable against the States because they were fundamental and not merely because they were named in the Bill of Rights. Whichever formulation was originally used, the former is now the one used by the Court. Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145, 148 (1968).
Provisions applied are:
Hamilton v. Regents, 293 U.S. 245, 262 (1934);
Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 300, 303 (1940).
Everson. v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1, 3, 7, 8 (1947);
Illinois ex rel. McCollum v. Board of Education, 333 U.S. 203 (1948).
Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652, 666 (1925);
Fiske v. Kansas, 274 U.S. 380 (1927);
Stromberg v. California, 283 U.S. 359 (1931).
Near v. Minnesota ex rel. Olson, 283 U.S. 697, 701 (1931).
DeJonge v. Oregon, 299 U.S. 353 (1937).
DeJonge v. Oregon, 299 U.S. at 364, 365;
Hague v. CIO, 307 U.S. 496 (1939);
Bridges v. California, 314 U.S. 252 (1941).
Search and seizure—
Wolf v. colorado, 338 U.S. 25 (1949);
Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961).
Benton v. Maryland, 395 U.S. 784 (1969);
Ashe v. Swenson, 397 U.S. 436 (1970) (collateral estoppel).
Malloy v. Hogan, 378 U.S. 1 (1964);
Griffin v. California, 380 U.S. 609 (1965).
Chicago, B. & Q. R.R. v. City of Chicago, 166 U.S. 226 (1897).
Klopfer v. North Carolina, 386 U.S. 213 (1967).
In re Oliver, 333 U.S. 257 (1948).
Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145 (1968).
Irvin v. Dowd, 366 U.S. 717 (1961);
Turner v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 466 (1965).
Notice of charges—
In re Oliver, 333 U.S. 257 (1948).
Pointer v. Texas, 380 U.S. 400 (1965);
Douglas v. Alabama, 380 U.S. 415 (1965).
Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. 14 (1967).
Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45 (1932);
Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963).
Cruel and unusual punishment—
Louisiana ex rel. Francis v. Resweber, 329 U.S. 459 (1947);
Robinson v. California, 370 U.S. 660 (1962).
Provisions not applied are:
Right to keep and bear arms—
Cf. United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 553 (1876);
Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252, 265 (1886).
Quartering troops in homes—
Grand Jury indictment—
Hurtado v. California, 110 U.S. 516 (1884).
Jury trial in civil cases in which value of controversy exceeds $20—
Cf. Adamson v. California, 332 U.S. 46, 64–65 (1947) (Justice Frankfurter concurring).
See Minneapolis & St. L. R.R. v. Bombolis, 241 U.S. 211 (1916).
But see Schilb v. Kuebel, 404 U.S. 357, 365 (1971).
But see Tate v. Short, 401 U.S. 395 (1971) (utilizing equal protection to prevent automatic jailing of indigents when others can pay a fine and avoid jail) 38
Malloy v. Hogan, 378 U.S. 1, 10–11 (1964);
Ker v. California, 374 U.S. 23 (1963);
Griffin v. California, 380 U.S. 609 (1965); Baldwin v. New York, 399 U.S. 66 (1970);
Williams v. Florida, 399 U.S. 78 (1970); Ballew v. Georgia, 435 U.S. 223 (1978);
First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U.S. 765, 780 n.16 (1978) (specifically the First Amendment speech and press clauses);
Crist v. Bretz, 437 U.S. 28 (1978); Burch v. Louisiana, 441 U S. 130 (1979).
39 Williams v. Florida, 399 U.S. 78, 106–107 (1970) (Justice Black concurring in part and dissenting in part), quoting Malloy v. Hogan, 378 U.S. 1, 10–11 (1964).
Republic v. Democracy CLICK HERE
Democracy versus Republic CLICK HERE
Notes on person CLICK HERE
'person' defined CLICK HERE
On rights and Liberties CLICK HERE
State Created Office Of Person CLICK HERE
"What's In A Name?" or "This Is Not That!" CLICK HERE
Silent Weapons for a Quiet War CLICK HERE
|NOTICE: Author is not affiliated with Freedom School.|
|NOTICE: The information on this page was brought to you by people who paid this website forward so that someone such as you might also profit by having access to it. If you care to do so also please feel encouraged to KEEP THIS SITE GOING by making a donation today. Thank you.
Freedom School is not affiliated with the links on this page - unless otherwise stated.
Freedom School information served for educational purposes only, no liability assumed for use.
The information you obtain at this site is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice.
Freedom School does not consent to unlawful action.
Freedom School advocates and encourages one and all to adhere to, support and defend all law which is particularly applicable.
Information is intended for those men and women who are not "US CITIZENS" or "TAXPAYERS" - continued use, reference or citing indicates voluntary and informed compliance.
Freedom School is a free speech site and operation as there is no charge for things presented
this site relys on this memorandum and others in support of this philosophy and operation.
The noteworthy failure of the government or any alleged agency thereof to at any time rebut anything appearing on this website constitutes a legal admission of the fidelity and accuracy of the materials presented, which are offered in good faith and prepared as such by Freedom School and third parties affiliated or otherwise. If the government wants to assert that any of the religious and/or political statements that are not factual appearing on this website are in error, then they as the moving party have the burden of proof, and they must responsively meet that burden of proof under the Administrative Procedures Act 5 U.S.C. §556(d) and under the due process clauses found in the Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh Amendments to the national Constitution BEFORE there will be response to any summons, questions, or unsubstantiated and slanderous accusations. Attempts at calling presented claims "frivolous" without specifically rebutting the particular claim, or claims, deemed "frivolous" will be in deed be "frivolous" and prima facie evidence that shall be used accordingly. Hey guys, if anything on this site is found to be in error a good faith effort will be made to correct it in timely fashion upon notification.
Presentation Copyright© 2007, 2016
All Rights Reserved
H O M E