Summary
âž¡ The text discusses the U.S. political system, focusing on the House of Representatives and the Senate. It explains that representatives and senators must be inhabitants of the states they represent, but not necessarily the specific districts. The text also mentions the 17th Amendment, which changed how senators are chosen, and the Connecticut Compromise, which led to the current bicameral Congress structure. Lastly, it uses a tea analogy to explain the different roles of the House and Senate.
âž¡ The U.S. Congress is made up of two houses, the House of Representatives and the Senate, each with different perspectives and roles. The House, elected by the people, focuses on what’s best for the citizens, while the Senate, appointed by state legislatures, is more concerned with state rights and rural areas. The article also discusses the controversial three-fifths clause, which counted three-fifths of the slave population for representation in the House. This was a compromise to balance power between states with many slaves and those with fewer, and was not intended to devalue slaves as less than human.
âž¡ The text discusses the historical context of the U.S. Constitution, focusing on the three-fifths clause and the concept of direct taxation. It explains that the three-fifths clause was a compromise to ensure the ratification of the Constitution by all states, including those in the South. The text also highlights the original taxation system, where states were directly taxed based on their population, and how this changed with the 16th amendment. Lastly, it delves into the definition of ‘person’ in the Constitution, touching on its implications for issues like slavery and abortion.
âž¡ The text discusses the role and nature of corporations, the impact of Citizens United on the political system, and the purpose of the census. It also explains the process of electing representatives and the power of impeachment. The speaker expresses mixed feelings about Citizens United and emphasizes the importance of understanding these topics for informed citizenship.
Transcript
Sorry about the delay. We had some technical difficulties on Mister Gibbs. And we have to all forgive Mister Gibbs because, you know, it’s very difficult to teach an extremely old dog new tricks. And he just got a new computer, so. Extremely old dog. We’re about the same age. I’m like, what? Few months old. I can’t hear you. I can’t hear you. I can’t hear you. Really? You can’t hear one thing? Change. Go ahead and change the audio settings. Wow. I can’t hear a thing. You’re saying nothing. How about that? According to the. Can you guys hear him? They say both.
Can you guys hear him? Yeah, they’re saying they hear us both. Okay, so this is bizarre because I. Can you guys hear him? All right, I can hear on the. I can hear on Rumble, but I can’t hear you through streamyard. And I can’t hear you through streamyard or I can hear you, but you can’t hear me. And I couldn’t hear you through streamyard with my little earphones, but I can through my microphone or, I mean, my speaker on my computer. How weird is that? Or with my little earphones, but I can through my microphone or, I mean, my speaker on my computer.
Okay, this is so if you can hear me, okay, there’s gonna. There’s gonna. There’s gonna my microphone around in my speaker on my computer. There’s that. This is so if you can hear me, okay, there’s gonna. There’s gonna my microphone or I need my speaker on my computer. There’s that. This is so if you can hear me, okay, there’s been. There’s been. There’s gonna. My microphone or, I mean, my speaker on my computer. There’s that. This is so if you can hear me, okay, it sounds like we’re in an. Or it sounds like we’re in an echo.
Just. Just go ahead and teach the class. And I’m not gonna say anything because I just. Just. Just teach the class. All right. Yeah. I don’t even know what’s going on here, so all kinds of weird stuff, but welcome to the program. You can hear me? Okay, give me one more. Yes. In the chat room, just to make sure. I’m. I don’t even know what’s going on here, so all kinds of weird stuff, but welcome to the program. You can hear me? Okay, give me one more. I don’t even know what’s going on here. We can.
I can hear you. All right, program. You can hear me? Okay. Last week, what we’re gonna so that’s what we’re gonna do. Someone saying. Echoing it’s looping. I don’t know because my. I have my speakers off now. So I don’t know what to do now if they’re saying, all right, he’s shutting all of his audio off now. Everybody can hear me just fine. No problem, no echo. Okay. I guess it’s good. You get the technical difficulties and then you figure them out. I actually showed up before the top of the hour, but then we just were having all kinds of issues.
So that’s what he was waiting on, for those of you wondering. Anyway. All right, so let’s establish. Let’s establish Congress in our constitution here. So article one, section two and article one, section three. Let’s start with article one, section two. The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several states and the electors in each state. Shop qualifications requisite for electors of most numerous branch of the state legislature. Stop there for a second. So first of all, the. We are our two houses. We have a lower house and an upper house.
The lower house is House representatives. The upper house is the US Senate. The lower house, as it says here is. Is democratically voted in the House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several states. So democratically voted in their term is two years. And then the. When it says and the electors that who that’s referring to are the people who are electing the members of the House representatives and the electors in each state shall have qualifications requisite. In other words, the same as for electors of the most numerous branch of the state legislature.
So the state also has two legislature, state houses of the legislature. And the most numerous branch of the state legislature would be the state house of Representatives or the state house of Delegates. State assembly in California. So what that means is whatever the rules are in the state, when it comes to your eligibility to vote for the people in your state house representatives, those same in each state eligibility requirements apply to the House of Representatives. Us. So what’s saying is as voters, the constitution says that you are eligible to vote for a member of the House representatives.
If you are eligible vote for a person in the state house of Representatives, it leaves it up to the state to make the determination. Now you’re supposed to be a citizen to vote and that gets, and that gets mentioned later on in the Constitution, but otherwise the requisite for the states, it’s up to the states. So that’s the reason why I kind of find it interesting that we have an amendment that moved the age 18. You’ll, it really didn’t say 21 in the Constitution, but all the states, that’s what they went with. And then old, you know, the 26th amendment when it came along, old enough to fight, old enough to vote.
And. And they decided they want the states to sign individually. They want to make sure it was a federal law or a federal amendment. Anyway. Then the next paragraph. No person shall be a representative who shall not have attained the age of 25 years and been seven years a citizen of the United States. Stop right there. So two year term, 25 years old, seven years of citizen. So you could be a naturalized citizen and serve in the House of Representatives. But you have. But you need to have been a citizen at least seven years. Now when it comes to us Senate, and I’m not going to turn to the page, but if you want to, article one, section three, what it says is that the Senate has two senators and they’re not voted in by the people originally.
Now you’ll see it in brackets if you have a pocket constitution like I do, but chosen by the legislature. Now if they’re chosen by the legislature, how is that done? Well, it’s up to the state on how to do it, but way they did it was each house of the legislature would choose its own senator to represent it. So the state house of Representatives would choose a senator and, or vote for a senator among its members and the state senate would vote for a us senator. Then you’ll notice that it says a couple paragraphs later that you need to be 30 years old to be a senator and been nine years a citizen.
So for the House it’s 25 years old. For the Senate it’s 30. For the House it’s seven years of citizen. For the Senate it’s nine years of citizen. So what we see is a difference between the two houses and they’re supposed to be different. So a, the age is different, b, how long you need to be a citizen in order to hold that office? Different. But the big one is how the members are chosen or different. So the citizens are chosen by the state legislature. The House is chosen by the vote of the people. They did that on purpose.
This is called a dissimilar. Dissimilar houses. We have a bicameral congress. Bicameral meaning two chambers. That’s what bicameral means. Two chambers, a bicameral congress. And that. What’s the point of having two houses if they’re gonna be exactly the same? Right. Then you might as well have a unicameral congress. They have two. Two houses, so they can be different. Different perspectives, different way of looking at things. It’s the reason why in a marriage, opposites attract, right? You don’t want two people looking at things exactly the same. Probably won’t work out too well. You want that different perspective.
If, as a writer, after I write something and I’m ready to get it published, my wife proofreads it more often than not, or I have proofreaders for my books. Why? Because I need a different perspective. I need someone who’s looking at it differently than me. They’re going to catch things the way it was worded, misspellings, whatever, that I might not catch. Same thing with our congress. We have two houses that are different from each other. So the House of Representatives, they’re a little hot headed because they come from the public. They represent the people. They’re democratically voted in.
I’m trying to remember who it was that when this. Oh, I think it was Alexis de Tocqueville who described the House representatives is a bunch of rowdy drunks, you know, from the public. And, and the Senate was, you know, the more distinguished, almost aristocratic types. Well, because they were, they, they were been around for a while. They knew how the process worked. They’d been in other bodies before. And that’s why they were trusted by the state legislature to be voted for as US senators. So while we don’t have an aristocracy or we’re not supposed to, we have kind of a pseudo aristocracy in the sense that these representatives from the states.
I’ll get. And Melvin’s asking about that. And shall not win elected. Yeah, it’s confusing. I’ll get to that. Melvin was asking that in the chat room. I’ll get to that. So we have our two different houses of Congress. So we have our House voice of the people, the Senate voice. Estates people don’t serve as long. They’re coming right up, you know, right out of the community. US senators, they serve a little bit longer. Six years. And they come out of the political system. They’re being appointed by the state legislature. Been around for a while. Different perspective.
So dissimilar houses, that’s important. 17th Amendment changed that. Now, if you want to get into the 17th Amendment, ironically, maybe coincidentally, is a better word. Warhammer and I did a video just the other day about the 17th Amendment. So if you want to get into the details of how the 17th amendment changed that and what damage it caused, go to the rumble channel, rumble.com Warhammester war underscore hamster, I think, is necessary. And on. And our video refedralist papers on the 17th amendment. Check it out. All right. Now let’s get to Melvin’s question. So in this, at the end, it seems confusing, and you have to really read it carefully.
So let’s first read the one about the house. No person shall be a representative who shall not have attained the age of 25 years and been, and been seven years citizen, United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that state in which he shall be, shall be chosen. It sounds like it’s saying that you’re not supposed to be an inhabitant state that you’re representing. It’s the opposite, because it’s a double negative. Remember, it begins with no person. No person who shall not, when elected in an, be an inhabitant of that state in which he.
He shall be chosen. So it’s a double negative. It means you have to be an inhabitant of the state that you’re chosen. Now, here’s the thing. It’s interesting about it. House of Representatives. It’s saying that you need to be a inhabitant of the state you represent. Represent in Congress. In the House of Representatives. It does not say that you have to be an inhabitant of the district that you serve. I know, for example, people like to get all over Maxine waters. Maxine Waters, when she first got voted in, actually did live in the district she represents.
Then she got rich off of being a congressperson with only 175,000 a year. Somehow she became a multi, multi, multi millionaire. Funny how that happens. And so she decided to build herself a mansion, a mansion in some other district. But she still represents the district she no longer lives in. People think that’s wrong. Perhaps it is, but it’s not unconstitutional. Constitutionally, she needs to reside in the same state. Now, sometimes you have these people kind of bend the rules on that. For example, uh, Mary Bono Mac, if you remember, uh, Sonny Bono, Sonny and Cher. Sonny Bono for a while was a Congress critter from the Palm Springs area.
And he was mayor of Palm Springs. He got. He got involved politically. And his later wife, Mary Bono, who then later on, married Connie Mack, a Congress critter from Florida. Mary Bono Mac was a Congress critter from that same region, the Palm Springs area, the desert area, for a while, because of where I lived in the Temecula Valley, for a while, that might. Where I lived was a part of that district. They later then changed the district lines. But anyway, so. But she lived in Florida with Connie Mac. Their home was in Florida. That’s. He was a Congress critter out of Florida.
But what she did is she kept her address in California and listed it as her residence, even though she wasn’t there most of the year. Well, if I’m a resident of California, I can still be a Congress critter from that district, was the argument, kind of pushing it there. But anyway, get back to the original point. The district’s not important as much as it is the state when it comes to the Constitution. When it comes to senate, it says the exact same thing at the end, and I’ll read it here. No person shall be a senator who shall not have attained the age of 30 years, have been nine years citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that state for which he shall be chosen.
Once again, double negative begins, no person then he goes, who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that state for what she shall be chosen. The double negative flips it, meaning, yes, they need to be an inhabitant of the state in which they have been elected, which they are representing. So now we have our congress. Now, here’s. Here’s some little background to help you understand a few things. A, the Continental Congress was not bicameral. It was unicameral. The. The states were allowed to have as many delegates they wanted, as long as that number was between seven and twelve.
But each state only had one vote. So whether you had one or, I’m sorry, seven delegates, or if you had twelve delegates, your state got one vote. That’s the way it worked under the Continental Congress. Same thing happened under the Congress in the Articles Confederation, one vote per state, regardless how many delegates you had. And once again, it was a seven to twelve threshold that they were looking for. And they realized, actually, originally, they proposed a unicameral congress. We had the Virginia plan, which was proposed by James Madison, and the big state of Virginia said, hey, this one vote per state thing doesn’t work.
Each representative should have a vote, and the number of representatives should be based on the population. Therefore, bigger states will have larger number of delegates and more votes. New Jersey provided a plan that said, nah, that’s messed up as little states. You’ll. You’ll gobble us up. You’ll control us. The factions who are in control of the large states will reduce the small states to mere provinces. We won’t have a voice. We recommend one senator per state so that each state has one vote in everything. So Virginia plan, New Jersey plan, and they’re fighting back and forth.
New Jersey plan, it never gets close to being adopted. But the Virginia plan, while it has more votes in the constitutional convention, it’s not getting enough votes to be adopted. In a sense. In a sense, it was a stalemate. Roger Sherman from Connecticut proposed a compromise. Let’s do both. Well, if one house be based on population, the other house be a set number. But instead of one, make it two senators. I mean, you know, at the constitutional convention, when John Lansing and Robert Yates walked out on the convention after six weeks, because they, because they thought the convention was going to be free, was going to be used to fix the articles confederation, they realized they’re writing a new constitution.
They walked out, leaving Alexander Hamilton by himself to represent New York. And they said, well, said, you can’t be the only person representing your state. They said to Hamilton. So while you can debate, your vote doesn’t count. Well, if they required at least two members from a state of the convention, shouldn’t it not then be at least two members from the state and the Senate? So it was rested on two for two reasons. One, to make sure there was enough representation, not just letting one person represent the whole state in the Senate, but also two, so that each senator could represent each house of the state legislature, one per house of legislative house, which is what wound up happening.
So you’ve got the Connecticut compromise that Roger Sherman offers, and that’s what winds up happening. Now, after it was all created and after all the dust settled and the ratification was going on, Thomas Jefferson comes back and from France, because he wasn’t at the convention, he was in France at the time. And he gets back to the United States, and George Washington had been president of the convention. So he asked George Washington, this congress, the way you’ve designed it, you have a pseudo aristocracy for the states and the Senate, you know, the voice of the people in the House.
Bicameral Congress. It’s an interesting structure. It’s unique. I like it. It’s good. But what do you think of it? What? What is your what? How’d you guys come about this? What’s going on here? And George Washington says, well, need to look at it this way. The House, the voice, the people and the Senate. How the House of the states is going to be different from each other. Sort of like you drinking your hot tea. What do you mean? Says, well, your tea is too hot to drink out of the cup, so you pour some in the saucer, and when you let it cool, you sip it out of the saucer, the hot cup of tea that’s too hot to drink.
That’s the hot heads in the House of Representatives. And that saucer, that’s the US Senate. And while he didn’t say this, he should have added where cool, cooler heads prevail, because that’s what he meant. So we have two different houses, a difference in opinion, a different in perspective between the two houses. There, they once again serve a shorter term in the House, longer term in the Senate, shorter time that you need to be a citizen in the House, longer time that you need to be a citizen in the Senate. And then the way they’re appointed or put into office is also different.
The House is democratically voted in and the Senate appointed by the state legislatures. One legislature. Once again, these gonna be people who have been in the system. It’s a pseudo aristocracy. They’ve been around, they know the people. They’re on the inside already, but they’re trusted to make their decisions based on what’s best for the state members in the house, they’re gonna try to make what they think is best for the people, what the people want. You know, how they feel, what presence they can get from the government. And the senators are gonna be like, nah, we’re more of a voice of the rural areas in the states.
We’re concerned with states rights, how food is going to be grown, whether or not the farmers are left alone, things like that. Two houses, same congress, different perspective. So there you go. That’s the establishment of our congress. And thank you for thanking me about that double negative. Yeah. Remember that in english class when you were in school? Yeah. That’s the reason why you say, you know, you know double negatives in your regular speech. Are you not supposed to? I ain’t got no. Well, if you ain’t got no, that means you do because it’s a double negative, right? Same thing.
So we have the no person and the shall not double negative. So it means that they are. Okay, second half of today, aside from establishing Congress, and I didn’t advertise this in my email, I probably should have. I think I might have mentioned it. I don’t know. It’s a three fifth clause. Three fifths clause is. Was established to figure out how we are going to apportion how we’re going to figure out how to apportion House representatives. Remember, senate to per state set number. There’s no mathematics, no arithmetic, nothing to figure out. Don’t have to bring out the, the beads on the wire or whatever it was they used to figure things out.
Wasn’t any calculators, that’s for sure. It’s two per state. No calculation necessary. But if you’re gonna base the House of Representatives on population, who do you count? Who is supposed to be figured into this? So the reality at the time was slavery existed. So the question went way beyond who do you count? Just when it comes to citizens. But what about slaves? See, if all the slaves were counted as a single whole number, states with more slaves would have a stronger voice in the House of Representatives. And the states with the least amount of slaves would not have a very strong voice.
If you didn’t count slaves at all. They didn’t count at all towards figuring out what the population is so that you could determine how many members of the House representatives of state gets within the states have the fewest slaves, which, it turns out, have the larger populations, like Pennsylvania, Massachusetts would have more representation, and the states which were more rural, but had a lot more slaves, like North Carolina, South Carolina and Massachusetts would have less. Have more representation and state presentation. We get on slaves speaker to check it or what South Carolina would have. Yeah. Anyway, okay, so we gotta then find a compromise.
We got to figure out what do we do then? Because now understand that all of the states had slaves at the time. Slavery existed in every one of the states. But some states were hardcore slavery, other states were not. And it was an abolition movement was beginning to grow, beginning to develop. And it was understood that you may see an abolition of slavery in some of these states someday soon. And the states that had more slaves. Well, this isn’t fair. A group that are starting to abolish slaves, if slaves aren’t counted at all, and they’ve got control of the house, they’re gonna start using the law against us to force us to change our lifestyle.
And we’re not going to join a union that allows that. We’re not going to be a part of this new Congress if this new Congress can be used against us, because the states with less slaves and larger populations can dictate to us. Meanwhile, the larger states that are have less slaves. I’m saying. Oh, wait a second. If you count slaves, look, if you count all the slaves, those rural areas where there’s a lot less citizens are going to have more power in the House representatives because of all the slaves they have. And if they want even more power, all they got to do is ship in more slaves.
Well, that’s not right. And then they’re going to push legislation to make slavery last forever. So can you hear me? Slavery. We’re not gonna open up that door. Can you hear me? We’re not gonna sign us. We’re not gonna ratify a constitution that allows the states with larger. With larger populations and less slaves to dominate the House of Representatives. We’re not gonna do it. So they had to come up with a compromise. What compromise do you come up with in a situation like that? How do you determine what to do? So they broke out their calculations, began figuring it out.
What could they do to make sure both sides make sure that both sides are willing to ratify this constitution? So they figured something out, a calculation. Three fifths. What happened was, if three fifths of a slave population was counted towards the apportionment, not full slave population, not none of it, but three fifths of the population. This is. They are not saying that a slave or a black person is three fifths of a human being, as has been argued by the hard left and by anti constitutionalists. They’re saying in order to get both sides to be willing to ratify this constitution, three fifth clause, three foot fifths of the slave population being counted for apportionment would keep the house about even.
Both sides will then, yes, I can see the comment section. So if you’ve got a question, go ahead and ask it. Thank you. Minnesota Patriot. So, if. So, if we’re going to get both sides willing to ratify this thing, we need to knock it down to three fifths. Now, it has been argued by 1619 project and other race baiting ideas and ideologies, black liberation theology, CrTA, that the constitution is a racist document, and the three fifth clause is evidence of that. I’m not the only person that disagrees with that. There’s quite a few. Let me name one.
Frederick Douglass. Frederick Douglass was a slave who escaped slavery. He had already begun his education on learning how to read and write while he was a slave, because the wife and children of slave owner had been teaching them. The slave owner had stopped it, saying, hey, you educate a slave and they become a problem. Well, Frederick Douglass was partly educated, became a problem. He escaped. After he escaped, he joined an abolitionist group in Massachusetts, and they are the people of the abolitionist group, argued that the constitution was a pro slavery document. So in his early quotes, he says, a pro slavery document.
Then Frederick Douglass finished his education. He was able to read, is able to write, studied the constitution, wrote a book. After he wrote his book, his book got so popular that he did a book tour. Now, remember, this is a guy’s an escaped slave he gets caught, he gets sent back to his owner. Not exactly flying under the radar here, writing a book and going on a book tour. His book was so popular that he wound up on his book tour in Britain. And while there, two british women totally appreciated him so much that they pulled their money together and bought Frederick Douglass’s freedom, sent it to his owner.
So when Frederick Douglass returned to the United States, he was a free man. Now get back to the Constitution. So by now, he’s reading and writing, and he has studied the Constitution, and he changed his mind on the constitution, and he proclaimed the Constitution. I have studied the Constitution, and I have found it not to be a pro slavery document. Then he talked about the three fifths clause. He said, the three fifths clause not only is not racist, it’s not pro slavery, it’s actually the exact opposite, because in order to receive more representation in the House of Representatives, a state would be encouraged to abolish slavery so that that population being counted as only three fifths would be counted as a whole population, which would increase representation, encouraging states to get rid of their slavery.
One of his other quotes directly tied to this. I hated the constitution until I read it. Frederick Douglass. So we have a three fifth clause that was designed. It was a calculation to make sure that both sides were willing to ratify it. And this was important. They wanted to make sure that. Why didn’t they say, well, you know, forget it, man. You know, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, they don’t want to join the union. They don’t get rid of their slavery or reduce those. Screw them. They couldn’t do that. Why? They needed them. The. The northern colonies understood they needed them because they served as a buffer between those northern colonies and middle colonies and the spanish empire to the south in Florida, who would love to gobble them up.
They needed that buffer. They needed the Carolinas and Georgia to be a part of the union, to protect them from the Spanish. If they let them loose on their own, the Spanish would gobble them up immediately. They wouldn’t be able to defend themselves without the whole union behind them. And then you would have the Spanish empire working its way northward and knocking on the door of Virginia. And they didn’t want that. So we’re willing to make the compromise. Once again, Frederick Douglass says, well, if anything, it was a anti slavery compromise because it encouraged states to release.
To release slavery, to abolish slavery. All right, so that’s the three fifths clause. But now there’s another part. Three fifths clause is important when you read it. I want you to pay attention here closely because it’s not just about representation. It says in that section, representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this union according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding the whole number of free persons, excluding those bound to service, return of service, and excluding Indians not taxed. Three fifths of all other persons, three fifths of those that are in slavery.
In other words. So two things I want us to point to. Take a look at here. A and excluding Indians not taxed. Why would Indians not tax not be counted in the calculation for the apportionment for Congress? Because they weren’t citizens. They didn’t want to be citizens while they lived on american soil, they were not citizens. Today, there’s another group of people who are not citizens, live on american soil, but they’re not citizens. Illegal aliens. But yet we’re told they’re supposed to be counted. Violates violates the Constitution. Now, granted, this clause is no longer play, but it’s that excluding Indians not tax is also mentioned in the 14th amendment when they adjusted this.
People who are not citizens, even if they’re on american soil, are not supposed to be counted towards apportionment. The other thing I want you to take notice of is that it says representatives and direct taxes. Now in article one, section nine, it says, and I’m going there right now, so I can read to you directly, no capitation or other direct tax shall be laid unless in proportion of the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken. Direct tax is who’s directly being taxed? An indirect tax is there’s something in the way the people were not directly taxed for an income tax.
Who paid direct taxes? Income tax was the states. They were the ones directly taxed. And what was saying article one, section nine, is if they’re going to be directly taxed, has to be based on the enumeration. Here it says the same thing represents in direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states. No direct tax on the people. And if there is a direct tax on somebody else, in this case the states, it must be based on population. In other words, you figure out population to figure out how much of the income taxes your state’s going to pay.
Yes, persons were counted, counted women and children as well. So in the chat room, I’m seeing that discussion going on. So anyway, now get back to our point here. So we’ve got a taxation system that’s different. There was no Ir’s. There was no direct tax. They only allowed indirect taxes. And if there was a direct tax on the states, it was based on population. So if your state was 12% of population, your state then would pay. Pay 12% of the budget. What would happen, though, is before the state paid the budget, they were they required to take a look at the budget.
And if federal government gave it to me. So wait a second. We’re not paying for. This is unconstitutional. That’s ridiculous. That’s unconstitutional. We’re not paying for it. What would the federal government need to do? They would adjust their budget so they get the money out of the state. Who’s not going to pay it unless they like the budget? When they got rid of that method with the 16th amendment and put direct taxation on us, their ability to spend unconstitutionally became unfettered. Slave slaves were considered persons. That’s why it says all and all other persons and three fifths of all other persons.
They were not only considered persons, but in the Declaration of Independence, 168 words of anti slavery language that Jefferson had written, which had been removed on July 1 because the South Carolina and Georgia was not hip with that language, he not only referred to the slaves as persons, but also to the men as men. Capital m, capital e, capital n, to put a emphasis on it. And then he wrote in the beginning of that same document, all men are created equal. Of course, it was a general reference to all persons, but he used the word men at the time.
Don’t the bar members use Black’s law dictionary? Yes and no. Black’s law dictionary, while some of it is still intact, some of it is not. Us law supersedes. So if there is a difference between Black’s law dictionary and current law in the United States under the Constitution or US code, that’s, then it supersedes black’s law dictionary. So you cannot say that everything in black’s law dictionary is followed by today’s bar members in United States. So to answer that question, thank you, LM 55. All right. Person is. And also I want to. You’re welcome. I also want to echo what Ron had said about people and persons, human being consisting of a body and a soul.
And this is where the abortion issue comes into play, because it says in article five and the 14th amendment that no person shall be, shall be denied their life, liberty, property, without due process. And so the reason why pro abortionists say that that’s not a person, it’s not a baby, it’s a lump, it’s a whatever. Because if if that baby has personhood, then they would. Then abortion would be illegal because they could not lose their life without due process. So, yeah, just a clump of sales. Thank you, Ron. So. So when Roe v. Wade in 73 was ruled upon and blackman, Justice Blackman indicates in his judicial opinion, when personhood begins, if it is ever determined when personhood begins, this ruling will be null and void.
He gave the answer on how to abolish abortion. So reason why? I don’t necessarily say pro life, although that’s the term used, it’s really pro personhood. I believe that these babies are persons, and if they’re persons, it violates constitution to kill them without due process. So person can apply to not just living and breathing persons, but also unborn persons. All right. The reason why Melvin indicated in the chat room that founding fathers hat must have. Must have had high iqs to come up with a wording they put in the constitution and foresight. Well, but how do you become that intelligent about this type of topic and have that kind of foresight? The answer is through history.
Looking back on history, they understood history. You have to know the past to figure out the future. This is the reason why anti constitutionalists are trying to change history, destroy history and topple statues. Boy, the chat room is interesting. I thought we use maritime law. No, we do not. Maritime law is only out to sea. Maritime law would include no juries, and we still have juries, so we’re not under maritime law. Now, first of all. Second of all, people like to confuse admiralty courts and maritime law. Admiralty courts, while named admiralty, it sounds like a maritime name, are not maritime law.
Admiralty courts are when they. When a judge is no longer appointed locally, but by the powers, and they eliminate juries. That would be an admiralty court. The British used admiralty courts against the colonists in Boston and Massachusetts. In fact, during the 1760s and 1770s, that was a part of what led to the revolution. Maritime law is basically a law on a ship captains in charge. That’s what maritime law is a part of it. Also a part of it is the maritime law. Special laws only for out to see which Congress is in charge of. According article one, section eight, can corporations be persons? Lm 55.
That’s a. That’s a nod to Citizens United. That is a discussion that would take us hours to parse out. Probably. Technically, they are not. Can they vote? No. Then they’re not persons. But at the same token, are they their own separate entities, like a person would be? Yes. So while a corporation may have some aspects of being a person. They are not technically a person. I think I have mixed feelings about Citizens United, but for the most part, I think it was a bad idea, because what it does, it puts a lot of money into the political system, which it was never intended.
And this is where we go back to the electoral college and things like that to get away from it. All right. And, Melvin, thank you. It says, I consider myself more informed now than a few years ago because of you, Douglas and Mike speaking to Ron. Well, that. That’s awesome. Thank you, Melvin. Okay, now, with five minutes left to go, let’s, uh, mention real quick there in the, the three fifths clause that mentions this apportionment. Well, how do you figure out the population with a census? The purpose of the census is simply to count the people for the purpose of determining representatives in the house and for the taxes that the states would pay.
And only citizens should be counted for that. Hence the reason why indians not taxed are not included. And here’s what it says about the census. The actual enumeration shall be made within three years. And this is article one, section two, by the way, right after the three of his clause shall be made within three years after the first meeting of the Congress, United States, and within every subsequent term of ten years. They wound up doing it three years after the meeting of the constitutional convention, 1790, and then seven, and then 1800, and every ten years since.
So every year that ends in zero. That’s when you have your census in such manner as may by, they shall by law direct. So the manner in which is carried out is a law that must be made by Congress. Both houses approved president signs which it is, and it’s on the books. Then the next part gets confusing. To some people, the number of representatives shall not exceed one for every 30,000. That does not say it’s one representative. For 30,000, we would have tens of thousands, hundred, if not more. I can’t remember the number. It’s this massive number of representatives.
If that was the case. No, it’s saying that a representative can’t represent less than 30,000, but each state shall have at least one representative. Rhode island has one member of the House. South Dakota has one member of the House. They have to have at least one, regardless of their population. And until such enumeration shall be made. And then it goes through what they think, think the states would have. And I’m going to go through it only to give you an idea of the populations of the states at the time. Pay attention. Some of them that you might have thought were larger populations might be middle, and some of that you thought be middle or smaller were larger.
State of New Hampshire shall be entitled to choose three. Massachusetts eight. Rhode island and Providence plantations, one. Connecticut, five. New York, six. New York only has one more than Connecticut. Interesting. Was mostly rural. New York was also a big time slave state at the time. New Jersey, four. Pennsylvania, eight. Delaware, one. Maryland, six. Virginia, ten. Virginia being the most populated state, North Carolina, five. South Carolina, five. And Georgia, three. When vacancies in the represent, in the representation of from any state, the executive authority thereof shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies. No was any time.
And vacancy happens in the House of Representatives, there’s a special election to fill that vacancy, and it’s up to the governor to issue that special election. That’s who the executive authority is. Then it says that the House representative shall choose their speaker and other officers. It does not say they have to be members of Congress. So. So remember when we were talking about maybe make a Trump speaker? So. Well, he’s not in the House. Didn’t have to be. Doesn’t say it has to be. It says House Representative shall choose their speaker. And other officers don’t necessarily have to be a member of the congress.
They can be whoever they want. They shall have the sole power of impeachment. Power of impeachment is the power to indict, power to charge. It does not. Impeachment is not removal from office. You not, you are not removed from office unless you are convicted that impeachment of what you were charged by the Senate. So the House representatives is charged of impeachment, in other words, charging or indicting. And the Senate, they’re in charge of holding the hearing, which we’ll get to in the coming weeks. So there you go. Article one, section two, and its completion. And part of article one, section three.
We will finish article one, section three next time. And article one, section four, hopefully get into that. We are near the top of the hour. Ron doesn’t have to say, hey, man, I gotta get going. I got that next video. But I’ll tell you, he’s got the next show coming up with Mike. Coming up next, from what I understand, Tuesdays with Mike, I think it’s called. And as for me, I appreciate the time. Thank you for spending time with me. Douglas v. Gibbs.com is where to visit me. I’m getting ready to write a new article tonight.
I just wrote one about the not taxing service workers tips. Not taxing tips. I mean. So check that out Douglas v. Gibbs.com if you want to help fund what I do on that main page at Douglas v. Gibbs.com donate button please where we got a my KMeT radio show funds are due in about a week and we’re still about $800 short. And become a patron. And that link bar on the far right where it says join $9 a month helps fund what I do. And I do a lot. All right, thank you. United we stand combined we kick butt.
God bless America and God bless you. Yes, I could go a little bit longer, Ron, but I’ve got a wife saying, hey, I need your help and got some big stuff going on tomorrow, so I’m gonna get but thank you for spending the time with me, everybody tell your friends about this hit the whatever button or subscription or whatever is there here on Rumble or wherever it’s at. Be sure to also comment because commenting actually helps. And get and if you have a question that you would like me to address in a show, go for it.
I appreciate you guys. We’ll see you next time. Douglasvgibbs.com God blessed.
[tr:tra].
Author
