14th Amendment: Part 1: The Interpretation of the LAW

by

This is an 8-part series on the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution and how it affects among other things, “birthright citizenship.” Today’s offering is: Part 1: The Interpretation of the LAW

Ed.

It has been a few years since I have taken the time to research a thought, summarize the results and present an argument. I am not a lawyer, but I have read the LAW. While many say one needs to attend a prestigious university in order to understand the Law, I ask “why?” The Law is what binds us together, it creates order in a society where there are as many opinions as there are people. Which is why we must read the LAW, interpret the LAW and understand the LAW, or the LAW will not be helpful to society!

Perhaps the greatest dissertation on the LAW was presented by a Frenchman named Frederic Bastiat, who published a short pamphlet in 1850 titled “The Law”. It is an easy read, and it sets the rules for The Law.

“The law is the organization of the natural right of lawful defense. It is the substitution of a common force for individual forces. And this common force is to do only what the individual forces have a natural and lawful right to do: to protect persons, liberties, and properties; to maintain the right of each, and to cause justice to reign over us all.

Each of us has a natural right — from God — to defend his person, his liberty, and his property. These are the three basic requirements of life, and the preservation of any one of them is completely dependent upon the preservation of the other two.

If a nation were founded on this basis, it seems to me that order would prevail among the people, in thought as well as in deed.” (1)

This Nation is based on the foundation that we have the God given natural right of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. Laws are created by the majority without denying the rights of the minority to assist in this endeavor, in fact, Laws are designed to create ORDER within our society, which is prerequisite for the concept of equality under the Law.

“But there is also another tendency that is common among people. When they can, they wish to live and prosper at the expense of others. This is no rash accusation. Nor does it come from a gloomy and uncharitable spirit. The annals of history bear witness to the truth of it: the incessant wars, mass migrations, religious persecutions, universal slavery, dishonesty in commerce, and monopolies. This fatal desire has its origin in the very nature of man — in that primitive, universal, and insuppressible instinct that impels him to satisfy his desires with the least possible pain.” (1)

The question remains, can bad Laws be created? Can the purpose of a good Law be misguided? The answer is YES, and when that happens chaos is the result. We see examples of this every day within our government representatives that wish to gain power and increase wealth, while demanding different actions from their constituents. Sadly, our representatives pit one group against another group for ideological gain, versus promoting ORDER between all groups.

“Men naturally rebel against the injustice of which they are victims. Thus, when plunder is organized by law for the profit of those who make the law, all the plundered classes try somehow to enter — by peaceful or revolutionary means — into the making of laws. According to their degree of enlightenment, these plundered classes may propose one of two entirely different purposes when they attempt to attain political power: Either they may wish to stop lawful plunder, or they may wish to share in it.” (1)

When you read the excerpts of Bastiat, how should you interpret them? Do you look at the words in terms of today or would it be better to realize that Bastiat wrote these words during the French Revolution of February 1848 when France was turning toward overt socialism? If one interpreted them in terms of today, would not education, voting, health care, employment and so many other issues be considered a “natural right?” If one did not interpret in terms of 1848, would not “revolutionary” imply something far different?

To paraphrase Bastiat’s thoughts, if a Nation is founded on the natural right of lawful defense, then order will prevail among the people. However, if the natural rights are ignored, and it is allowed that people live for themselves and prosper at the expense of others, then we have

“incessant wars, mass migrations, religious persecutions, universal slavery, dishonesty in commerce, and monopolies.” (1)

The Battle Today: Birthright Citizenship

If the interpretation of a Law results in order, then the Law has been properly interpreted, but if the interpretation of a Law results in chaos, either the interpretation is bad, or the Law is bad. It truly is that simple. In order to have a thriving Republic, everyone must be equal under the Law, everyone must understand the Law. If one group uses the demands of today to interpret a Law, then chaos results, as “plunder is organized by law for the profit of those who make the law”. (1)

Amendment 14: Section 1: All persons born or naturized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

Does this Section of the 14th Amendment establish birthright citizenship for all? Regardless of status? It seems that since the 1960’s, there has been a push that this indeed does establish birthright citizenship regardless of condition. But is this correct or is it the interpretation required for future needs? Has order resulted from this interpretation, or has chaos reigned supreme with many groups plundering the rights of American citizens?

What matters?

The 14th Amendment was ratified by ¾ of the States on July 9th, 1868 after almost two years of discussion following the passage of the Civil Rights Bill of 1866. While we frequently think of today as being tumultuous, but the period between Appomattox in 1865 and the ratification has no parallel.

The House passed a version of the 14th Amendment and the Senate passed their own version. Speeches were made, definitions were discussed, and a compromise was created to provide a super majority of 2/3’s of both the House and the Senate for passage. The pre-certified Amendment was given to the States for ratification, where ¾’s of the States had to approve.

Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Tennessee, Missouri, Kansas, Nebraska and Nevada ratified the amendment pre-certification. North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Arkansas, and Louisiana rejected the amendment, but then ratified the amendment pre-certification. Ohio and New Jersey rescinded their ratification, then ratified pre-certification. Oregon rescinded after the certification and then ratified later. California ratified after certification. Texas, Kentucky, Mississippi, Virginia, Delaware and Maryland rejected the Amendment, but ratified after certification. Texas, Mississippi and Virginia were not allowed back in the Union until they ratified the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments. A total of 37 States participated in the Amendment process, even though 11 States did not have representation in the Federal House and Senate discussions. At the State level, there were 30 ratifications, 6 rejections and who knows what happened in California. Ultimately, all States ratified the 14th Amendment.

So, what matters in the Constitutional Amendment process? It is very simple. The Federal House and Senate chambers and the State Legislatures must understand the purpose of the Amendment as well as the meanings of the words, phrases and punctuation. There is no living and breathing huddle, the words are fixed in time and that is what is ratified. The 2025 interpretation of those same words does not matter, those meanings were never voted upon; further to change the meanings of the words of the Amendment, or the intent of the Amendment, would cause chaos. The citizens of 1868 through their State Legislatures ratified the 14th Amendment and they understood the meaning of each word.

This is Original Intent. If indeed a majority today believes the 14th Amendment or any other Amendment, as an example the 17th, is flawed, or if they want to add another meaning to the words, then there is a provision to change the Constitution through the Amendment process.

Recently Democrat Chris Murphy remarked that whether we like it or not, the courts interpret the law.” 

With all due respect, the courts were never involved in the 14th Amendment. The 14th Amendment was created, improved, discussed, explained and ratified by the Federal and State legislatures under the supervision of the people. And there exists an Original Meaning, that is all that matters.

My favorite Christmas movie is the 1947 movie “The Bishop’s Wife”. Toward the end of the movie, the Bishop remarks to his wife that she combs her hair so “capably”. She looks at the Bishop and states “You are in a good mood”, to which he responds, “I feel gay”.

Original Intent – what did “I feel gay” mean?

Tom Weaver, PATRIOT ©2/13/25

(1) Excerpts “The Law” Frederic Bastiat 185

If you enjoyed this article, then please REPOST or SHARE with others; encourage them to follow AFNN. If you’d like to become a citizen contributor for AFNN, contact us at managingeditor@afnn.us Help keep us ad-free by donating here.

Substack: American Free News Network Substack
Truth Social: @AFNN_USA
Facebook: https://m.facebook.com/afnnusa
Telegram: https://t.me/joinchat/2_-GAzcXmIRjODNh
Twitter: https://twitter.com/AfnnUsa
GETTR: https://gettr.com/user/AFNN_USA
CloutHub: @AFNN_USA

 

Post Views: 329

Leave a Comment