14th Amendment: Equal Protection Law or Tool of Usurpation

MKitch3|Sept. 26,2025


Read the 14th Amendment. Now, try to think like a politician/lawyer and imagine how, from that text, the U.S. government has grown from a weak little entity with 18 constitutionally-enumerated powers to the inner-galactic behemoth that claims to have the authority to:

Tax and regulate everything, approve poisons and mandate their consumption, throw innocent people into prison and torture them, secretly surveil and monitor people’s communications, movements and transactions, spend money it does not have and borrow money it can never repay, seize private property and never give it back, stage phony elections, commit heinous crimes against humanity—at home and abroad—with no concern of being caught or punished, manufacture justifications for war, destroy entire regions and murder innocent women and children.


The illegal encroachment or assumption of the use of authority, power or property belonging to another, the interruption or disturbance of an individual in his or her possession

The term usurpation is also used in reference to the unlawful assumption or seizure of sovereign power, in derogation of the constitution and rights of the proper ruler.

West’s Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2.

Welcome to the 14th Amendment—and we thought it was kindly Uncle Sam’s way of making it illegal to keep slaves.

Pictured is page 15641 of the Congressional Record from the U.S. House of Representatives, June 13, 1967. Rep. John Rarick (D-Louisiana) submitted this and an additional six pages of material to support his claim that the 14th Amendment was (and is) illegal. As we can see, 40 years later, Congress has not yet gotten around to recognizing the 14th’s illegality.

June 13, 1967, page 15641 H7161 

THE 14TH AMENDMENT - EQUAL PROTECTION LAW OR TOOL OF USURPATION 

(Mr. Rarick, at the request of Mr. Pryor, was granted permission to extend his remarks at this point in the Record and to include extraneous matter.) 

Mr. RARICK. Mr. Speaker, arrogantly ignoring clear-cut expressions in the Constitution of the United States, the declared intent of its drafters notwithstanding, our unelected Federal judges read out prohibitions of the Constitution of the United States by adopting the fuzzy haze of the 14th Amendment to legislate their personal ideas, prejudices, theories, guilt complexes, aims, and whims. Through the cooperation of intellectual educators, we have subjected ourselves to accept destructive use and meaning of words and phrases. We blindly accept new meanings and changed values to alter our traditional thoughts. 

We have tolerantly permitted the habitual misuse of words to serve as a vehicle to abandon our foundations and goals. Thus, the present use and expansion of the 14th Amendment is a sham —serving as a crutch and hoodwink to precipitate a quasi-legal approach for overthrow of the tender balances and protections of limitation found in the Constitution. 

But, interestingly enough, the 14th Amendment—whether ratified or not was but the expression of emotional outpouring of public sentiment following the War Between Our States. 

Its obvious purpose and intent was but to free human beings from ownership as a chattel by other humans. Its aim was no more than to free the slaves. 

As our politically appointed Federal judiciary proceeds down their chosen path of chaotic departure from the peoples’ government by substituting their personal law rationalized under the 14th Amendment, their actions and verbiage brand them and their team as secessionists—rebels with pens instead of guns—seeking to destroy our Union. They must be stopped. Public opinion must be aroused. The Union must and shall be preserved. 

Mr. Speaker, I ask to include in the Record, following my remarks, House Concurrent Resolution 208 of the Louisiana Legislature urging this Congress to declare the 14th Amendment illegal. Also, I include in the Record an informative and well-annotated treatise on the illegality of the 14th Amendment—the play toy of our secessionist judges—which has been prepared by Judge Lander H. Perez, of Louisiana. 

The material referred to follows: 

H. Con. Res. 208 

A concurrent resolution to expose the unconstitutionality of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States; to interpose the sovereignty of the State of Louisiana against the execution of said amendment in this State; to memorialize the Congress of the United States to repeal its joint resolution of July 28, 1868, declaring that said amendment had been ratified; and to provide for the distribution of certified copies of this resolution. 

Whereas the purported 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution was never lawfully adopted in accordance with the requirements of the United States Constitution because eleven states of the Union were deprived of their equal suffrage in the Senate in violation of Article V, when eleven southern states, including Louisiana, were excluded from deliberation and decision in the adoption of the Joint Resolution proposing said 14th Amendment; said Resolution was not presented to the President of the United States in order that the same should take effect, as required by Article I, Section 7; the proposed Amendment was not ratified by three-fourths of the states, but to the contrary fifteen states of the then thirty-seven states of the Union rejected the proposed 14th Amendment between the dates of its submission to the states by the Secretary of State on June 16, 1866, and March 24, 1868, thereby nullifying said Resolution and making it impossible for ratification by the constitutionally required three-fourths of such states; said Southern states which were denied their equal suffrage in the Senate had been recognized by proclamations of the President of the United States to have duly constituted governments with all the powers which belong to free states of the Union, and the Legislatures of seven of said southern states had ratified the 13th Amendment which would have failed of ratification but for the ratification of said seven southern states; and, Whereas the Reconstruction Acts of Congress unlawfully overthrew their existing governments, removed their lawfully constituted legislatures by military force and replaced them with rump legislatures which carried out military orders and pretended to ratify the 14th Amendment; and, Whereas in spite of the fact that the Secretary of State in his first proclamation, of July 20, 1868, expressed doubt as to whether three-fourths of the required states had ratified the 14th Amendment, Congress nevertheless adopted a resolution on July 28, 1868, unlawfully declaring that three-fourths of the states had ratified the 14th Amendment and directed the Secretary of State to so proclaim, said Joint Resolution of Congress and the resulting proclamation of the Secretary of State included the purported ratifications of the military enforced rump legislatures of ten southern states whose lawful legislatures had previously rejected the said 14th Amendment, and also included purported ratifications by the legislatures of the States of Ohio and New Jersey, although they had withdrawn their legislative ratifications several months previously, all of which proves absolutely that said 14th Amendment was not adopted in accordance with the mandatory constitutional requirements set forth in Article V of the Constitution and, therefore, the Constitution strikes with nullity the purported 14th Amendment. Now therefore be it resolved by the Legislature of Louisiana, the House of Representatives and the Senate concurring: 

(1) That the Legislature go on record as exposing the unconstitutionality of the 14th Amendment, and interposes the sovereignty of the State of Louisiana against the execution of said 14th Amendment against the State of Louisiana and its people; 

(2) That the Legislature of Louisiana opposes the use of the invalid 14th Amendment by the Federal courts to impose further unlawful edicts and hardships on its people; 

(3) That the Congress of the United States be memorialized by this Legislature to repeal its unlawful Joint Resolution of July 28, 1868, declaring that three-fourths of the states had ratified the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution. 

(4) That the Legislatures of the other states of the Union be memorialized to give serious study and consideration to take similar action against the validity of the 14th Amendment and to uphold and support the Constitution of the United States which strikes said 14th Amendment with nullity; 

  1. That copies of this Resolution, duly certified, together with a copy of the treatise on "The Unconstitutionality of the 14th Amendment" by Judge L. H. Perez, be forwarded to the Governors and Secretaries of State of each state in the Union, and to the Secretaries of the United States Senate and House of Congress, and to the Louisiana Congressional Delegation, a copy hereof to be published in the Congressional Record. 

Vail M. Delony, 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

C. C. Aycock, 

Lieutenant Governor and President of the Senate. 

THE 14th AMENDMENT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL 

The purported 14th Amendment to the United States is and should be held to be ineffective, invalid, null, void and unconstitutional for the following reasons: 

1. The Joint Resolution proposing said Amendment was not submitted to or adopted by a Constitutional Congress. Article I, Section 3, and Article V, of the U.S. Constitution. 

2. The Joint Resolution was not submitted to the President for his approval. Article I, Section 7. 

3. The proposed 14th Amendment was rejected by more than one-fourth of all the states then in the Union, and it was never ratified by three-fourths of all the States in the Union. Article V. 

I. THE UNCONSTITUTIONAL CONGRESS

The U.S. Constitution provides: 

Article I, Section 3, "The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State * * * 

Article V provides: "No State, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate." 

The fact that 23 Senators had been unlawfully excluded from the U.S. Senate, in order to secure a two-thirds vote for the adoption of the Joint Resolution proposing the 14th Amendment, is shown by Resolutions of protest adopted by the following State Legislatures: 

The New Jersey Legislature by Resolution of March 27, 1868, protested as follows: 

"The said proposed amendment not having yet received the assent of the three-fourths of the states, which is necessary to make it valid, the natural and constitutional right of this state to withdraw its assent is undeniable * * *

16th Amendment parallelogram: 

In order to reverse the constitutional order by creating a supreme central government seated in Washington, D.C., definitions of key words were altered significantly prior to "ratification" of the 14th Amendment. Throughout the decades of debates that allegedly resulted in the passage of the 16 Amendment (the income tax), the word "income" was understood to be revenues generated from corporate profits and profits from investments—not wages and salaries which were, at that time, considered "personal property." Now wages and salaries are taxed as "income" alongside "unearned income." Another parallel linking the two amendments is they were both highly controversial, hotly contested and "ratified" under extremely suspect circumstances. 

Unseen forces not revealed in parliamentary proceedings had decided to create U.S. citizens for the purpose of empowering a central authority to tax and regulate them to the full extent of their elitist imaginations. Government schools teach us that these were lawfully-ratified amendments to the Constitution when they are really thin veils of legal legitimacy barely disguising high-level political crimes that equate to an ongoing betrayal of the American people. Isn’t it also interesting that the most destructive acts ever passed by the central government, the 14th and 16th amendments, were delivered to the nation through fraud, deceit, violence and coercion?




Tyranny and the Police State: How Law and Government Reshaped America

MKitch3|Sept. 23,2325

“When government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny.”  
 -Thomas Jefferson


Every generation of Americans swore it would never happen here. Tyranny was something our ancestors fought to throw off, not something we’d ever embrace. But here we are, surveilled and regulated, treated like suspects by our own government. What changed? Everything. And it didn’t happen overnight. This is a post that came out of my white paper on the subject.

The Founders’ Blueprint

America was born in rebellion against a king who taxed, surveilled, and sent soldiers to knock on doors. The Bill of Rights was supposed to keep that nightmare from returning. Free speech, private property, the right to bear arms, the guarantee that no soldier or bureaucrat could barge into your life without cause—those were meant to be permanent guardrails.

It didn’t take long to start breaking them. The Alien & Sedition Acts (1798) literally made criticizing the government illegal. Lincoln suspended habeas corpus during the Civil War, locking up Americans without trial. Cracks formed almost immediately.

Government’s Growth Addiction

Crisis became the permanent excuse. The Civil War gave us income tax and centralized federal power. The Progressive Era gave us the IRS, Federal Reserve, and FBI. FDR’s New Deal locked in a federal managerial state that never shrank back. Each step was sold as “temporary.” None of it was.

Birth of the Police State

Prohibition turned ordinary Americans into criminals. Federal agents stormed homes, raided bars, and perfected surveillance tactics.

By the 1960s, the FBI was running COINTELPRO, spying on civil rights leaders and antiwar activists. Martin Luther King Jr. was wiretapped and harassed by his own government.

Then came the War on Drugs. SWAT teams, civil asset forfeiture, mass incarceration—it all became normal. The courts shrugged and gave police qualified immunity, making them nearly untouchable.

The 9/11 Jackpot

If you were in Washington on September 12, 2001, you had a golden ticket. Politicians rushed the Patriot Act into law, and suddenly secret courts, mass surveillance, and indefinite detention were standard operating procedure.

The Department of Homeland Security was created, the TSA became permanent, and the NSA quietly built a surveillance system that made East Germany’s Stasi look like amateurs. Local police got armored vehicles and battlefield rifles. By the time Ferguson erupted in 2014, America’s cops looked more like an occupying army than public servants.

COVID and the Emergency State

If 9/11 built the hardware, COVID-19 installed the software. Americans were confined to their homes under threat of arrest. Businesses were shuttered by decree. Speech questioning the rules was censored online. Vaccine passports and contact tracing apps were rolled out like beta tests for a digital permission system.

For the first time, it became obvious: government no longer needed war or terrorism to justify emergency powers. Public health worked just fine.

From Liberty to Permission

The cultural shift might be the most dangerous part. The founders assumed government must always justify its power. Today, the expectation has flipped. Citizens are forced to justify their freedom. Want to travel, work, or even speak online? Prove you have permission.

Generations raised on fear—fear of terrorists, drugs, pandemics—accept checkpoints, surveillance, and constant monitoring as “normal life.”

The Timeline of Tyranny

  • 1798: Alien & Sedition Acts criminalize dissent.
  • 1861: Lincoln suspends habeas corpus.
  • 1917: Espionage Act punishes antiwar speech.
  • 1933: New Deal locks in permanent bureaucracy.
  • 1971: War on Drugs militarizes policing.
  • 2001: Patriot Act launches mass surveillance.
  • 2020: COVID lockdowns confine Americans in their own homes.

Where We’re Headed

America has become what it once resisted: a heavily surveilled, heavily policed society where the rule of law is too often the rule of fear. The infrastructure for tyranny already exists—databases, cameras, drones, militarized police forces. All it needs is the next “emergency” to tighten the screws.

The choice now is simple. Reclaim the founder’s suspicion of government, or learn to live inside a digital cage disguised as democracy.



The Partisan Road to Tyranny: George Washington’s Fatal Prediction

MKitch3|Sept 20,2025

This post continues the thread I began in an earlier article, Principles of Tyranny. Part of the inspiration for this addition comes from the Tenth Amendment Center. I’m going to keep hammering on the theme of tyranny, because it’s not a subject that can be brushed off in a single essay. Future posts will dig even deeper, each one adding more detail and context.

It’s an essential topic—one that every American should be well-versed in and ready to call out wherever it rears its head.

The Partisan Road to Tyranny: George Washington’s Fatal Prediction

George Washington’s Fatal Warning and Prediction

“A frightful despotism.”

George Washington knew what was coming. His Farewell Address, published on September 19, 1796 in the American Daily Advertiser, wasn’t just a retirement notice. It was a dire warning against things like skyrocketing debt and entangling foreign alliances.

But his sharpest, most prophetic warnings were about political parties and the constant fight for power they would unleash, a fight that could only end in total tyranny

A WARNING FOR THE AGES

Washington saw political parties as such a great threat because they were the most dangerous expression of a deeper poison: the mindset of putting party loyalty above all else.

“Let me now take a more comprehensive view, & warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the Spirit of Party, generally.”

He argued this partisan instinct, while a universal human trait, gets supercharged in a republic where it grows to its most extreme and destructive form.

“This spirit, unfortunately, is inseperable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human Mind. It exists under different shapes in all Governments, more or less stifled, controuled, or repressed; but in those of the popular form it is seen in its greatest rankness and is truly their worst enemy.”

This mentality inevitably turns politics into an endless cycle of weaponized power and revenge that creates a “frightful despotism.”

“The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge natural to party dissention, which in different ages & countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism.”

This chaotic warfare between factions is just a temporary phase, a prelude to something far worse: a stable and permanent tyranny.

“But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism.”

Washington saw the endgame clearly: a population suffering from constant strife will see a dictator not as a threat, but as a welcome relief.

“The disorders & miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security & repose in the absolute power of an Individual: and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty.”

THE DAILY DAMAGE

Washington saw two threats: immediate and long-term. Permanent despotism lay far ahead in the future. But the daily rot of partisanship was the immediate disease paving the road to get there.

“Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight) the common & continual mischiefs of the spirit of Party are sufficient to make it the interest and the duty of a wise People to discourage and restrain it.”

He laid out the specific consequences: a government that can’t function (don’t threaten us with a good time!), a public poisoned by paranoia, and mobs in the streets.

“It serves always to distract the Public Councils and enfeeble the Public Administration. It agitates the Community with ill founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot & insurrection.”

Worse, he warned that these internal divisions act as an open invitation for foreign enemies to corrupt the entire system.

“It opens the door to foreign influence & corruption, which find a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country, are subjected to the policy and will of another.”

FUEL FOR THE FIRE

Washington conceded a critical point: under a king, political factions can act as a useful check on absolute power.

“There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the Administration of the Government and serve to keep alive the spirit of Liberty. This within certain limits is probably true—and in Governments of a Monarchical cast Patriotism may look with endulgence, if not with favour, upon the spirit of party.”

But in a republic, he argued, that same spirit is not a check on power; it’s gasoline poured on a fire.

“But in those of the popular character, in Governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be, by force of public opinion, to mitigate & assuage it. A fire not to be quenched; it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest instead of warming it should consume.”

He then connected the dots. The partisan firefight inevitably tempts the winners to ignore the Constitution and consolidate power.

“It is important, likewise, that the habits of thinking in a free Country should inspire caution, in those entrusted with its administration, to confine themselves within their respective Constitutional spheres, avoiding in the exercise of the Powers of one department to encroach upon another. The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one, and thus to create whatever the form of government, a real despotism.”

WEAPON AGAINST FREEDOM

Washington built his case for the Constitution’s design on a brutally honest assessment of human nature: people are addicted to power and gladly abuse it.

“A just estimate of that love of power, and proneness to abuse it, which predominates in the human heart is sufficient to satisfy us of the truth of this position.”

Because of this, he argued that guarding these boundaries is just as important as drawing them.

“The necessity of reciprocal checks in the exercise of political power; by dividing and distributing it into different depositories, & constituting each the Guardian of the Public Weal against invasions by the others, has been evinced by experiments ancient & modern; some of them in our country & under our own eyes. To preserve them must be as necessary as to institute them.”

Washington pointed to the amendment process as the legal way to change things. Don’t like how power is divided? Use the process. It’s also a reminder that the people are in charge, not the government.

“If in the opinion of the People, the distribution or modification of the Constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates.”

But he warned that ignoring the rules to achieve a short-term goal – no matter how noble it seems – is the classic tool of tyrants: a weapon to destroy freedom.

“But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed.”

THE BRUTAL TRUTH

The largest government in the history of the world loves it when the people fight among themselves.

This creates a vicious feedback loop. The bigger the power in government, the more vicious the fight to control it. And the more vicious the fight, the more power people demand the government take to restore order.

It’s the exact cycle Washington warned would produce a “frightful” and “permanent despotism.”

The end result? “The ruins of public liberty.”

These are George Washington’s farewell warnings that almost everyone ignores today – and if we don’t heed them, the worst is yet to come.