The 14th Amendment
Resulted In Annulment
Of Safeguards For States’ Rights

Later Amendments to the Constitution, especially the 14th Amendment and the 17th Amendment obliterated state's rights. The states’ rights issue had come to a head early on when Andrew Jackson refused to acknowledge South Carolina’s right to nullify a federal law.

A conflict eventually arises under a system committed to political pluralism. When it does the stronger partner in the social contract will almost always resolve the issue in their own favor. Jackson was not one to stand down to a perceived inferior.

14th Amendment

The 14th Amendment is the most convoluted and difficult to interpret of the Constitution’s twenty-six amendments. Of the three Civil War amendments this one is most destructive of states’ rights. One fundamental issue at stake in the War Between the States was the right of the states to secede from the union.

The contention of the South was that the states had voluntarily entered into the federal union on condition of certain stipulations which were specified in the Constitution. It followed, therefore, that they could voluntarily leave the union if the terms of the covenant (Constitution) were violated by the federal government.

The right of secession was forcibly suppressed on the field of battle. The 14th Amendment was drafted by the victors to ensure subjugation of the vanquished and to consolidate additional power at the federal level. A number of provisions served to accomplish this end.

In the first place, Section 1 provides that from that point forward priority would be given to U.S. citizenship, with state citizenship secondary. This is derived from the stipulation that "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States."

This shift to a federal focus was reflected in the diction used to describe the United States. Prior to the War Between the States, it was customary to say "the United States are . . . . " After the War the usage shifted to "the United States is . . . . "

Furthermore, the 14th Amendment went on to state: "Nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law: nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." On the surface this sounds fair enough.

However, subsequent interpretations have construed this to mean that the states are now subject to the restrictions of the Bill of Rights. Such an interpretation completely circumvents the original intent of the Bill of Rights which was to limit the power of the federal government.

17th Amendment

The 17th Amendment, which took effect on May 31, 1913, completely obliterated the Connecticut Compromise--known as the Great Compromise--of the Constitutional Convention. The early weeks of the Convention had been marked by rancor because of an inability to arrive at agreement on the question of representation in the new Congress. The large states favored representation based on population while the small states naturally favored an equal number of representatives for each state.

Under the Great Compromise the representation in the lower chamber was to be based on population. In the higher chamber two Senators were to be selected by the state legislatures of each state. The states themselves as governing entities were thereby represented by their two Senators at the Federal level. The Senators could communicate the wishes of the state legislature directly to the federal government.

The latter provision ensured that the states as states had an important mechanism of control--two personal representatives--at the federal level. Under the 17th Amendment senators are elected by popular vote and the states as political entities are left to the mercy of the federal juggernaut.

Abuse of the system in states such as Oregon led to the demise of state representation in the U.S. Senate. For example, in Oregon the U.S. Senator was actually financing the campaigns of state legislators, who thus became pawns in his hand at election time. Unfortunately, the people threw the baby out with the bath water in addressing this abuse.

Under a system of pluralism the government is not committed to any particular religious standard. Article VI had outlawed the religious test oath. Thus, under the Constitution, the strongest voice rather than the voice of truth prevails. In these cases the Constitution’s commitment to a radically neutral pluralism was used to subvert the document itself.

CONCLUSION

Not content with the Constitution’s religious neutrality, modern humanists have distorted the document at nearly every point wherein it reflects the biblical pattern. They have done this by departing from or ignoring the clearly stated intent of the founders. Instead, the Constitution is assumed to be a "living" document, readily adaptable to the changing times. This is the essence of political pluralism.

In practice this has meant that the power of the federal government has expanded in response to a variety of cultural crises. The triggering mechanisms have sometimes been broad based, resulting in ill-advised constitutional amendments such as the 14th Amendment. More often, the catalyst has been individual litigation, providing the judicial environment in which an activist Supreme Court may gradually subvert the Constitution.