|
| |
In the colonial past when the right to vote was linked to property, some women enjoyed
the franchise. The right, as applied to women, had been revoked in New
York in 1777. The spread of Jacksonian democracy beginning in the 1820s had meant
universal white male suffrage, without regard to property or other
qualification, but sensitive, intelligent, and publicly concerned women were still
deprived of it.
The Ten Original Amendments: The Bill of Rights, was passed by Congress September 25,
1789.
***Thus the US Constitution and the original ammendments presumed that a man was the head
of the family, was the sole voter and decision maker, and was solely
responsible for all family matters. There would be no thought for the next century and a
half that the language of this historic document would be applied to women.
The suffrage amendment was reintroduced by Jeannette Rankin of Montana on January 20,
1918. She herself was from the first region to grant the vote to women
and was the first woman to be elected to Congress. The amendment passed amidst the cheers
of women who sat knitting in the galleries. Other women gathered on
the steps of Capitol were described by the New York Times as "cheering like
collegians after a football victory." The vote was indeed close, only one more than
the
required two-thirds. One congressman left the deathbed of his suffragist wife to cast his
vote and then returned to her funeral. Two congressmen came from hospitals
to cast affirmative votes. Tennessee was the thirty-sixth state to ratify the amendment.
On August 26, 1920, final passage was achieved. Times had changed.
AMENDMENT XIX Passed by Congress June 4, 1919. Ratified August 18, 1920. The right of
citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged
by the United States or by any State on account of sex.
***No attempt, however, was made to correct the language of the Constitution to take into
account the mental, physical, moral, and emotional differences between
the genders. Consider for example that the amendment referring to "equal
proection" of the laws was written more than half a century before women had the
right to
vote or were even considered for "equal protection".
AMENDMENT XIV Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868 nor to deny to any
person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
***The 143 years during which women did not have the right to vote marked a stable period
of American History during which social pathology was absent,
divorce was rare, illegitimacy was almost non-existent, economic growth was unprecedented,
and innovation ruled. In the 75 years since women were given the right
to vote, chronic declining family stability, increasing divorce rates, increasing
illegitimacy, increasing crime, and increasing incarceration rates, which accelerated at
an
unrecedented rate beginning in the 1950s, have been the byword. But this gradually
increasing social pathology did not seriously impact the momentum of the
previous 2 centuries of rapid economic growth for almost half a century, in the mid-1960s,
when the Dow Jones Industrial Average reached its all-time after-inflation
high. At that point the US was the undisputed world leader in standard of living and per
capita income. So why the feminist complaints that American women were
"discriminated against"? In a reckless and vigorous attempt to accomodate that
complaint we ignored and abridged the clear language of the Constitution.
***This mistake shall be corrected. The original language of the US Constitution shall be
adhered to. The protections, immunities, privileges, and rights of those to
whom the Constitution originally applied shall hereby be asserted without further
prevarication.
AMENDMENT XIII Congress January 31, 1865. Ratified December 6, 1865. Section 1. Neither
slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for
crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United
States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
***What IS "involuntary servitude" if it is not forcing someone to work against
their will for someone else? Removing children from fathers as a matter of government
policy; doling them back to fathers in exchange for tremendous psychological, time
consuming, financial, legal costs; ignoring the state of fatherlessness this creates;
forcing fathers to pay "child support" to an ex-wife who provides no physical or
emotional or other support and who often provides exactly the opposite; tracking
them across state lines; removing their drivers' licenses, their business licenses, and
often their credit rating and their ability to conduct business or hold a job; is
involunatry servitude, is unconstitutional, and shall end.
AMENDMENT XIV Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868 Section 1. 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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges
or immunities of citizens of the United States;
***Taking a man's children, home, current and future income, savings, car, self respect,
drivers' license, business licenses, and ability to earn a living is an
abridgement of his privileges or immunities. This is particularly true if he has not
committed a crime, which the vast mojority of fathers have not. This language
provides a responsibility to the Supreme Court to assure that neither the states nor the
federal government violates these privileges or immunities. Volumes of laws
and regulations, millions of lawsuits, hundreds of billions of dollars in legal fees from
the filing of millions of individual law suits have failed time and time again, across
the entire face of the nation, to assert basic, clearcut Constitutional rights, and this
shall end.
nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property,
***A man's family is precisely the "life, liberty, or property" referred to
here. A man who does not commit a crime, has as his highest priority in his life the
welfare of
his children, is capable of raising them, has the financial resources prior to the state
removing them in the name of divorce to provide shelter, food, care, and love for
them, as well as his children, shall be assured that the State will not deprive "any
person" of this basic Constitutional right to his life, liberty, or property.
***Children of divorce shall also be provided their Constitutional right to life, liberty,
or property by assuring that they remain in the household with the optimum
psychological, moral, spiritual, financial, and educational environment.
without due process of law;
***"Due process of law" prohibits this destruction of a father's family and
life, and it is for good reason in the face of the overwhelming evidence that the State
itself
is the catalyst which created the problems of divorce and illegitimacy, which led to our
40% rate of fatherlessness, which created our social pathology?
nor to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
| |
|
