From the May 2006 Idaho Observer:

Are you a party to the rebellion?

Fourteenth Amendment, Section 2 riddle solved; "eligible voter" takes on new meaning

In the Dec., 2005 edition of The IO, we ran a four-page section, "The federal plantation"—a series of articles about the 14th Amendment. We began by analyzing the amendment by section. Our analysis of Section 2 was that it was very difficult to understand but its affects are seen today as roles of disenfranchised voters (those who lost the voting "privilege" for one reason or another) are growing. Following is a thorough interpretation of Section 2. What it reveals: Shocking. The extent to which we have been duped: Humbling.

[Note: It is paramount for people who intend to be free that they become "experts" in three critical areas: 1. Who we are (in both the eyes of our Creator and the state, which are two different things); 2. How our bodies work (why they get sick and what keeps them healthy) and; 3. The nature of money. Since we are encouraged to graduate from public instruction without understanding in these areas, it is our responsibility, to ourselves and our countrymen, to obtain this critical knowledge on our own. The following article, while only scratching the surface of who we are in the eyes of the state, is a valuable contribution to our ongoing education into the "hows" and "whys" things have gone so badly for Americans. ~DWH]


By LB Bork


The following is an advanced explanation regarding the language and intent of Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment.

First, the relevant part of Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment:

"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."

That establishes the legal fiction that all people born in the United States are "citizens of the United States" at birth. Also it establishes "dual citizenship"; this is a legal principal and/or status that did not exist in America prior to the Fourteenth Amendment.

Now Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment:

"Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State."

The two sections make for a complex formula. What they do is:

1) Set forth that all people are "citizens of the United States" under legal fiction;

2) Establish new apportionment for the inhabitants of each of the several States;

3) Enfranchise the new "citizens of the United States" and;

4) Disenfranchise the state citizens.

The new body politic

In short, this formula created a new "body politic." The "state citizens" that were the members of the several States under the original constitutional system needed to be tricked into participating. This is the main or general purpose of Section 2 of the amendment.

Now, note that it was set forth by Noah Webster that an insurgent is one that breaks the law of his country or government. Here is the definition as set forth in the 1820s:

INSURGENT. A person who rises in opposition to civil or political authority; one who openly and actively resists the execution of laws. [See insurrection.]

An insurgent differs from a rebel. The insurgent opposes the execution of a particular law or laws; a rebel attempts to overthrow or change government, or he revolts and attempts to place his country under another authority. All rebels are insurgents, but all insurgents are not rebels.

The original—or de jure—political power of each state in the American union was held by each state in the original constitutional premise. This was not a power of the United States, i.e. the federal government. Each State could set its own parameters on how elections were to be held, i.e. who could vote for whatever reasons set forth. For example, the federal government had no power to mandate that women vote in any election. This was a state right held by the states prior to the Fourteenth Amendment. The premise is usurped by the 19th Amendment of the "new" constitutional system.

The political power of each state is the ultimate power which governs a country. In other words, without the consent of "people" or the body politic of any given country, there can be no government authorized to enforce laws among people.

At this time it is appropriate to define the word "country":

"COUNTRY. By country is meant the state of which one is a member.

2. Every man's country is in general the state in which he happens to have been born, though there are some exceptions. See Domicil; Inhabitant. But a man has the natural right to expatriate himself, i.e. to abandon his country, or his right of citizenship acquired by means of naturalization in any country in which he may have taken up his residence..."

~Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 1856.

Each state in the Union is, therefore, more accurately characterized as a country.

Now, recalling the term insurgent above, a rebel endeavors to put his country under new authority. Again, the political power of a country is held as the ultimate power. This is inherent in the states via the people, not the federal government. Again, no people, no consent; hence no law can be established by a government. Voting is convincing evidence of consent: If you vote in elections you ascribe legitimacy to the offices of those who are elected.

Moreover, it should be noted that the Confederate forces in the so-called Civil War were not actually "rebels" as ignorant historians and federal officials commonly refer to them. This fact exists because, then and now, the United States has no lawful authority to force any state to remain in the Union, nor the authority to conquer any state. This is evidenced by citing the following definition:

Rebels. A term loosely but incorrectly applied to the Confederate Forces engaged in the Civil War. [emphasis added]

~30 Am J Rev ed lnsurr § 2

Remember, rebels have the primary purpose of turning the sovereignty of their country over to another power. The Confederate States in the War Between the States were not doing this at all: They—the states—were the power, not the United States.

Decoding Section 2

Stealthy language is ingeniously buried in Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment. We can "decode" Section 2 by removing superfluous language—a technique common among grammarians—to illuminate how the "inhabitants" (or de jure state citizens) of the several States were tricked into turning over their lawful political power to a new, insurgent governmental system under the "legal" operations of the Fourteenth Amendment:

"…the right to vote at any election…is denied…except for participation in rebellion, or other crime…"

Though many words have been deleted, the excerpt above contains the pertinent language buried in Section 2.

Now here is section 2 broken down for a more complete explanation:

"Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed."

That is setting forth that all people (or persons) in the state are going to be represented by the federal representatives. Indians are precluded as their tribes are considered separate sovereign nations and they are not party to the Constitution.

Now the next sentence:

"But when…"

The phrase "But when" is simply establishing that something is going to change from the first sentence.

Now the next part of the sentence:

"…the right to vote at any election…"

In summary it is saying: "But when the right to vote at any election..."

Now the next part of the second sentence:

"…for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof…"

That language can be eliminated. However, it should be understood that the officers to which they are referring are considered "insurgent" state and federal officers that are in agreement with the new U.S. citizenship (i.e. dual and/or federal citizenship). In other words, they are all willing to occupy offices within the new political system installed under the Fourteenth Amendment.

Now, here is the next part:

"…is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States…"

That sets forth the following:

1) It is denying something. What? The right to vote.

2) The right to vote is granted to who? Male inhabitants (the ones that are citizens of the United States and 21 years of age).

Remember, Section 1 states that all "persons" born in the United States are citizens of the United States. If you check the voting regulations in the states you will find that everyone must be a "citizen of the United States" to vote.

To this point we have decoded Section 2 as stating the following : "But when the right to vote at any election is denied."

Now the next part:

"...or in any way abridged…"

That part can also be eliminated. It just means that the right to vote is curtailed.

For what reason is it abridged? One reason is you cannot vote unless you are a citizen of the United States. The phrase "is denied" is sufficient in describing the action of not being able to vote.

Now, let us go over the action of why there is the denial to vote; in other words, the right to vote is denied or curtailed "…except for participation in rebellion, or other crime…"

The right to vote is denied or curtailed for these two reasons: 1) For anyone not participating in the rebellion and; 2) For anyone that is committing crimes.

That is the main part which portrays the state citizens—that are now deemed citizens of the United States—turning over the inherent political power of their states to the federal government. See the definition of "insurgent" above which portrays the definition of a rebel. The right to vote is also denied anyone who commits other crimes. In other words, anyone that commits a felony under the new system cannot vote; however, he is still represented under the assumption that he is a party to the rebellion. The state citizens involved in the rebellion are also represented for turning the political law of their countries over to the Congress.

In actuality, the last point has a hidden, dual purpose: 1) It denies anyone the right to vote EXCEPT FOR participation in rebellion; 2) It denies the right to vote (or curtails it) for committing a felony in the new governmental system, i.e. people who have a felony record today cannot vote.

In summary to this point we have: "But when the right to vote at any election is denied except for participation in rebellion."

Now let us remove "But when" as it is the factoring phrase that establishes that the representation is going to be reduced for the reason set forth (which will be explained in a moment).

This gives us: "the right to vote at any election…is denied…except for participation in rebellion."

Most people believe Section 2 would deny voting rights to those participating in rebellion. This is due to the general belief that the so-called rebels could not participate in elections of the puppet governments set up in the Southern States by the United States during Reconstruction. However, this belief requires them to unwittingly—or conveniently—leave out the word "except." Plus, this amendment affects all the states, not just those that sided with the Confederacy.

The Fourteenth Amendment is how the unlawful, insurgent, "rump" congress fixed things. They got the people to unwittingly turn-over the full political power of their countries to congress, i.e. the federal government.

It should also be noted that President Johnson opposed the Reconstruction Acts as unconstitutional and narrowly escaped being impeached by the "Radical Republicans" who forced their passage.

The formula completed

"…the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State."

The words "such male citizens" are the old or de jure state citizens who are new citizens of the United States that are participating in rebellion. Do they include the ex-slaves? That is questionable. Such "persons" were given the right to vote by the 15th Amendment. The de jure (original) state citizens—that are now agreeing to be federal citizens by voting in this system—bear (force their will on) on all state citizens that originally had the political power.

This last part is completing the reduction of representation in respect to the ones that are voting, or the ones participating in the orchestrated rebellion that overthrows the original bodies politic of the several American states.

The rebellion continues

Be advised that this is why the current system makes sure that everyone (not disenfranchised) is involved in elections. Have you noted the importance on voting today? The only justification for this insurgent/rebel governmental system to exist is to have people vote for it. All others are technically not represented; however the ones not voting are presumed to be United States citizens and are silently going along with the rebellion.

This is a complex formula. It involves the whole numbers of persons in each state, Indians who are not taxed, male inhabitants over the age of 21 and citizens of the United States.

The use of the term PERSON is used to indicate that one can be either a citizen of the United States or a state citizen (as noted at the end). It is not until we get to the word or term INHABITANT that we see that the sentence construction makes the persons aforementioned into "citizens of the United States" by their action of voting. This is referred to as an "operation of law."

The end of the formula where CITIZENS is used is where we can see that all persons may possibly not be citizens of the United States, i.e. federal citizens; but due to Section 1 there is a very strong presumption that they are such citizens; especially after taking benefits and acting as if they were "citizens of the United States" by signing state and federal government forms, etc.

A gray area is created using the term "persons," which includes many different personalities. The end of the sentence describes what the Fourteenth Amendment does to the de jure bodies politic: State citizens—de jure citizens (or persons)—are disenfranchised.

The following question/answer will clearly illustrate the legal concept indicated above:

Q: If you are in no way employed by, a shareholder of, or in business with, the General Motors corporation, does it’s body politic have any direct authority over you?

A: NO. You are not part of that corporation.

So, how can the corporation named the United States have power over you if you are not a member of its body politic?

Also, the United States—in the internal sense—is not a nation. It breaches the law of nations, hence, the members of the falsely created nation cannot be under a body politic government, but are under a body politic corporate.

What the 14th accomplished

Though not specifically addressed in this article, there is overwhelming evidence to strongly suggest that an illegally-seated congress did not properly ratify the Fourteenth Amendment. For more information on the political skullduggery behind the Reconstruction Acts and passage of the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments, follow the links at the end of this article or consult the books indicated.

Regardless of the provable illegality of the Fourteenth Amendment, its passage replaced state supremacy with federal supremacy and turned state citizens into federal citizens, completely reorganizing the political system as guaranteed by the Constitution and Bill of Rights as ratified.

Here is what sections 1 and 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment accomplished upon being recognized as "ratified":

1) Section 1 makes all people in the United States (the several states) citizens of the United States, i.e. federal citizens (see federal citizenship).

2) Section 2 sets up a legal fiction that all persons (or inhabitants) are represented by Congress. This includes all people living in the several states, including ex-slaves.

3) Section 2 enfranchises citizens of the United States, but not the ex-slaves; on its face this is done with the 15th Amendment.

4) Section 2 gets "state citizens" to participate in rebellion which in turn gives consent to a new political system installed by an illegally-seated Congress (the United States).

5) Section 2 disenfranchises state citizens of the several States.

6) Section 2 ultimately sets forth that the only ones represented in this new government are the ones voting and not committing crimes (under the presumption that the ones committing crimes are U.S. citizens).


The people of the United States of America are not under the principals of the original constitutional system. The current governmental system is an unlawful fraud. The only way it has authority is through the legal operations of the usurpers’ Fourteenth Amendment. The current government can only represent people that support it by voting; and the de facto-insurgent states can only regulate "its" citizens by private statutory law. These people are in rebellion against the republican system that was in place prior to the War Between the States. Accordingly, this is why the de facto Supreme Court says things like this:

"In this country, the law in effect in all but a few States until mid-l9th century was the pre-existing English common law... It was not until after the War Between the States that legislation began generally to replace the common law." ~Roe v. Wade, 410 US 113

LB Bork of Wisconsin is the author of "The Red Amendment" and hosts the People’s Awareness Coalition (PAC) website at The Red Amendment is an analysis of the Fourteenth Amendment that is available through the website. Also posted to the site are articles on legal fictions, the relationships between sovereigns and subjects, the corporate nature of the United States, historic documents proving the illegality of the Fourteenth Amendment and essays seeking to unravel the terms used to define our existence and relationships to political entities. You can also write the PAC at PO Box 313, Kieler, WI 53812

Another excellent analysis of the criminal activities that led to the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment is "The Phantom Fourteenth" by Patrick Henry Omlor (2003, 60 pp., softcover) . Copies are available for $13 each (incl. s/h) by calling (509) 994-6011 or by ordering online at

Mortgage=Death pledge

Laypeople communicate with one another using words we define and understand within the context of common usage. Let’s call this language "Webster’s Dictionary English."

When laypeople are talking to lawyers/judges/legislators, they may be saying things that sound like Webster’s English, and we may be hearing them in Webster’s English, but they are using a completely different language we will call "Black’s Law Dictionary English."

This is one of the ways the working people of America are being systematically stripped of their rights—and dignity—by opportunists who develop no callouses on their hands while playing word games with our lives.

To become adept at determining when someone is speaking to you in Black’s while pretending Webster’s, get a Black’s Law Dictionary and start looking up words in common usage. You will be amazed.

Another way to investigate the language is to locate a dictionary of word origins and start looking up words. You will find that many Black’s definitions are more closely tied to word origins than definitions of common, contemporary Webster’s usage. You will also find that both Webster’s and Black’s definitions of words have origins eerily related to their contemporary usages.

An example to trigger your interest in this subject is the word "mortgage." We understand mortgages in contemporary terms as contracts whereby we purchase real property over time. In feudal days, when an impoverished heir (the eldest son of a noble) wished to borrow money, he would sign a pledge to pay the debt when he inherited the estate upon his father’s death. This arrangement was called a "mortgage." Mort = death; gage (of Teutonic origin) = pledge. Together they become "death pledge."

Today the most common way for people to buy property is over time, through usurers who force us to sign complicated contracts we benignly refer to as mortgages.



We have been taught to believe that the "Civil War" was fought by the Union to free the negro slaves and that the Fourteenth Amendment was passed to lawfully acknowledge their newly-won equality by amending the Constitution. The following excerpt proves that the intent of the Fourteenth Amendment was more comprehensive. It also supports the notion that the "revolted" states were being used to compel all the states to accept the provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment (federal supremacy) as a condition of acceptance in the new Union.

Consent to this condition?

"In the first place, we ask that they will agree to certain changes in the Constitution of the United States; and, to begin with, we want them to unite with us in broadening the citizenship of the Republic. The slaves recently emancipated by proclamation, and subsequently by Constitutional Amendment, have no civil status. They should be made citizens. We do not, by making them citizens, make them voters,—we do not, in this Constitutional Amendment, attempt to force them upon Southern white men as equals at the ballot-box; but we do intend that they shall be admitted to citizenship, that they shall have the protection of the laws, that they shall not, any more than the rebels shall, be deprived of life, of liberty, of property, without due process of law, and that "they shall not be denied the equal protection of the law." And in making this extension of citizenship, we are not confining the breadth and scope of our efforts to the negro. It is for the white man as well. We intend to make citizenship National. Heretofore, a man has been a citizen of the United States because he was a citizen of some-one of the States: now, we propose to reverse that, and make him a citizen of any State where he chooses to reside, by defining in advance his National citizenship—and our Amendment declares that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside." This Amendment will prove a great beneficence to this generation, and to all who shall succeed us in the rights of American citizenship; and we ask the people of the revolted States to consent to this condition as an antecedent step to their re-admission to Congress with Senators and Representatives."

~ The Reconstruction Problem, speech by Rep. James Blaine (R-Maine), Skowhegan, Maine (August 29, 1866)

Blaine was a Radical Republican who ultimately lost his bid for the presidency in 1876 to Rutheford B. Hayes amid accusations that he used his office to profit from railroad deals.

Home - Current Edition
Advertising Rate Sheet
About the Idaho Observer
Some recent articles
Some older articles
Why we're here
Our Writers
Corrections and Clarifications

Hari Heath

Vaccination Liberation -

The Idaho Observer
P.O. Box 457
Spirit Lake, Idaho 83869
Phone: 208-255-2307