Michael Opitz Tea Party Speech, Marietta Georgia, July 3, 2009
Good evening my Name is Michael Opitz and I am President of the Madison Forum, a civic non-partisan organization focused on “Good Government” through understanding truth and facts.
I want to give special recognition to Madison Forum Member, Richard Gruetter, self-taught Constitutional Scholar from whose research provided much information for this talk.
One of my favorite quotes is “Knowledge is Power … Ignorance is Slavery.”
“A nation of well informed men who have been taught to know and to prize the rights God has given them cannot be enslaved. It is in the region of IGNORANCE that tyranny begins.” Benjamin Franklin
“If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.” –Thomas Jefferson to Charles Yancey, 1816. ME 14:384
The U.S. Constitution is our foundation for freedom, it was not written in hard to understand legal terms it was written, so that every man of that time could understand the words, meaning and intent. After the Constitutional points were established by the delegates to that convention, it was then submitted to the people in each state and not the state legislators. It was published in every newspaper, so citizens could discuss and understand it. They did not need lawyers and judges then to tell them what the words meant. Think about that! Perhaps a higher percentage of the people then knew the Constitution better than we do today. The citizens of our country voted to ratify the Constitution without the advice and interpretation of legal scholars.
Over the years people have come to rely on lawyers and judges to tell us the meaning of the sacred scrolls, and we, the people have trusted them to tell us the truth. But they have not told us the truth, and we have accepted it without question.
We have been told that federal and Supreme Court judges have a life time appointments. That is not true. The Constitution does not grant lifetime appointments to judges. Article states III Section 1. States: “The judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their office Offices during good behavior.”
Regarding the jurisdiction of Congress to impeach, Hamilton said in Federalist 65, pg. 265:
“Their jurisdiction extends to offenses proceeding from the misconduct of public men. Or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. The offenses may properly be called POLITICAL, since they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to society itself.”
Justice Joseph Story, appointed to the U. S. Supreme Court by President James Madison (1811-45); considered the founder of Harvard Law School and its Professor of Law (1829-45); his contributions to American law have caused him to be called, … the “Father of American Jurisprudence.” 3
“… an impeachment … is not so much designed to punish an offender as to secure the state against gross official misdemeanors. It touches neither his person nor his property, but simply divests him of his political capacity.”
“The offences to which the power of impeachment has been and is ordinarily applied as a remedy are … political offences, growing out of personal misconduct, or gross neglect, or usurpation, or habitual disregard of the public interests… unconstitutional opinions … attempts to subvert the fundamental laws and introduce arbitrary power”
A Federal Judge who makes rulings based upon anything but our U.S. Constitution, and those laws and treaties that flow from U.S. Constitutional authority, is violating his oath of office.
So when some Supreme Court judges such as Breyer, Ginsberg, and others who are consulting other countries’ constitutions are legislating their personal intent and therefore should be removed from office.
If a Judge changes the original intent of a law, or the U.S. Constitution he is legislating, setting public policy, or imposing his own will.
Remember what Justice Story said :
“The offences to which the power of impeachment has been and is ordinarily applied as a remedy are … political offences, growing out of … usurpation, or habitual disregard of the public interests… unconstitutional opinions … attempts to subvert the fundamental laws and introduce arbitrary power”
Now that brings us to the XIV Amendment.
Thomas Jefferson admonished Supreme Court Justice William Johnson:
“On every question of construction, carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.”
Justice James Wilson (one of only 6 who signed both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution and was the second most active member of the Constitutional Convention) similarly explained:
“The first and governing maxim in the interpretation of a statute is to discover the meaning of those who made it.”
In the 1866 Senate ratification debate, the Citizenship Clause’s proponent, Jacob Howard of Michigan, said it was:
“… that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural and national law, a citizen of the United States. … This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners,[or] aliens, …”
“James Doolittle of Wisconsin … wanted it clear that Indians were excluded because they owed allegiance to their tribes. The Citizenship Clause’s drafters were careful to exclude Indians … from U.S. citizenship because they were not fully subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.”
“Pennsylvania’s Edgar Cowan discussed citizenship’s limits. ‘If a traveler comes here from Ethiopia, from Australia, or from Great Britain, … he has a right to the protection of the laws, but he is not a citizen in the ordinary acceptation of the word.’
Lyman Trumbull of Illinois, chairman of the Judiciary Committee and a key drafter of the 14th Amendment, explained the jurisdiction requirement. The provision is, that ‘all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.’ That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ … What do we mean by ‘subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?’ Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.”
“The … jurisdiction requirement, affirmed by its drafters’ expressed intent, is that after dealing with the special case of freedmen, the Citizenship Clause confers birthright citizenship only on citizens’ children.”
The bottom line is this – the federal courts have no authority to allow children who are born in our nation of alien parents, here legally or illegally, to automatically become citizens of the United States of America. That was NOT the intent of the 14th Amendment!
U.S. Supreme Court
IN SLAUGHTER-HOUSE CASES, 83 U.S. 36 (1872)
The Court ruled:
“… to establish a clear and comprehensive definition of citizenship which should declare what should constitute citizenship of the United States, and also citizenship of a State, the first clause of the first section [of the 14th Amendment] was framed.
‘All 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.’
“… and it overturns the Dred Scott decision by making all persons born within the United States and subject to its jurisdiction citizens of the United States. That its main purpose was to establish the citizenship of the negro can admit of no doubt. The phrase, ‘subject to its jurisdiction’ was intended to exclude from its operation children of … citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.”
Today, however, courts are ruling that a child born on our soil, who’s mother is here illegally, is a citizen of the United States.
Chief Justice Marshall stated in Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. 264
“We have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given, than to usurp that which is not given. The one or the other would be treason to the constitution.”
The courts do not have the authority to change our nation’s citizenship requirements! When they do, they violate their only requirement to stay in office, found in: Article III, Section 1, …“shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour,” by violating their oath to protect and defend our Constitution.
As can be seen in “Cohens” above – they also commit: “…treason to the constitution.”
A couple weeks ago at a Cobb County Republican Breakfast, I had a conversation with Congressman Nathan Deal on Birthright Citizenship. He stated that he was looking for a test case to go to the Supreme Court for a current ruling. I asked that if the Supreme Court issued a favorable ruling supporting the original intent of the 14th Amendment, by what mechanics could the ruling be enforced? He replied that he did not know, and that no one had ever asked that question before. I pressed the question. He then stated that it must start with the state’s issuance of the Birth Certificate.
My reply was that if Georgia passed legislation that instead of issuing a standard Certificate of Birth, Georgia issued a “Statement Foreign of Birth” with the following qualification: “This Statement of Birth” is the official record of foreign birth and does not grant citizenship in compliance with the 14th Amendment.”
I then discussed the idea with Representative Bobby Franklin and State Senator Judson Hill. They both supported this idea. Bobby said he would be willing to introduce it in the Georgia House and Judson stated he would introduce it first in the Georgia Senate.
This is responsive leadership; please offer your strong support to them and this legislation which I believe will be offered in many states across our country. The 10th Amendment has meaning, and this will help us solve a critical problem which if not addressed properly, will forever change our nation.
We all must gain knowledge. It is not enough to gather in crowds to protest without knowledge. Armed with knowledge and facts, we can visit congressional offices across the country to help educate them on the U.S. Constitution and their responsibilities to us … “we the people.” That is the next step, and that is “Good Government.”
Latest posts by Bryce Shonka (see all)
- Rhode Island Rallying Resolve to Deny NDAA - June 6, 2012
- The Futility of Federal Office - May 8, 2012
- The Establishment Media Are Clueless About the Purpose of The Constitution - April 30, 2012