Moorish American News provides news about moors from around the diaspora

The 14th Amendment And Noble Drew Ali’s Civic Doctrine

2 169

Islam,

The 14th and 15th Amendments brought the North and South in unit, placing the Southerners who were at that time without power, with the constitutional body of power. And at that time, 1865, the free national constitutional law that was enforced since 1774 declared all men equal and free, and if all men are declared by the free national constitution to be free and equal since that constitution has never been changed, there is no need for the application of the 14th and 15th Amendments for the salvation of our people and citizens.”

-Prophet Noble Drew Ali

To begin to answer the question we have to first look at how the legal system actually uses the 14th Amendment, and then compare it to both the generally accepted view of said amendment by Moorish Americans and the so-called conscious community, and the words of the Prophet.

14TH 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 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; 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.

14TH AMENDMENT: The Incorporation Doctrine, allowing for the Anglo-American scheme of justice to be applicable to the several states.

What is Incorporation Doctrine?

The incorporation doctrine is the legal principle that allows the Supreme Court to apply the Bill of Rights to the states under the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses. It made most of the Bill of Rights apply to the state governments as well as to the federal government.

The original understanding was that the Bill of Rights did not restrict the power of the states; the states could restrict free speech, search private property without warrants, deny trial by jury, etc.  The ratification of the 14th Amendment in 1868 did not change this legal understanding.  However, starting in 1925 interestingly, the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court began to rule that some rights were so fundamental to the conception of due process of law that they must apply to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, which prohibits any state from denying due process of law to any person.

The 14th Amendment became the means by which the Federal Government could establish an objective standard for the determining of fundamental rights; prior to this there was generally no such standard in state adjudication.  This change in understanding and legal determination greatly expanded the practical rights of all Americans that answered up to the constitutional standard; it also transferred to the US Supreme Court much of the power that was reserved to state governments (lawmakers and judges) as early as the founding of the nation, and it is THIS matter of the 14th Amendment that States Rights advocates protest so vehemently.  Politically-speaking, the entire “sovereign citizen” thought stream rightly belongs to States Rights ideology.
The actual origin of the present “conscious community” misunderstanding about the 14th Amendment actually came from the Sovereign Citizen movement via “Moors.”  The problem is while the 14th Amendment did by design provide a type of citizenship for negroes, the misconception is that the use of the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction” somehow makes other means of acquiring citizenship “non-subject”.  There is no such thing as a sovereign individual, or an individual that is not subject to anything/anyone other than him/herself; this is the actually a manifestation of Joyce’s “non serviam” attitude of Satan.

Congress’ intent in including the qualifying phrase “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” was apparently to exclude from the reach of the language children born of diplomatic representatives of a foreign state and children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation, both recognized exceptions to the common–law rule of acquired citizenship by birth, as well as children of members of Indian tribes subject to tribal laws. In Afroyim v. Rusk, a divided Court extended the force of this first sentence beyond prior holdings, ruling that it withdrew from the Government of the United States the power to expatriate United States citizens against their will for any reason.  As it was the desire to give permanence of citizenship protection to negroes, this court decision secured said permanence.  In a subsequent decision, however, the Court held that persons who were STATUTORILY NATURALIZED (pay attention to that phrase) by being born abroad of at least one American parent could not claim the protection of the first sentence of Sec. 1 of the 14th Amendment, and that Congress could therefore impose a reasonable and non–arbitrary condition subsequent upon their continued retention of United States citizenship. Between these two decisions there is a tension which those NOT armed with our Prophet’s mission or solution would be restricted to calling forth further litigation efforts to explore the meaning of the citizenship sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment.

But our Prophet was Divinely Prepared.

In 1862 (6 years before the 14th Amendment was written), Secretary of the Treasury Salmon P. Chase sent a question to Attorney General Edward Bates asking whether or not “colored men” can be citizens of the United States. Attorney General Bates responded on November 29, 1862, with a 27-page opinion, which stated the following (in part):

“Taking the plea, then, strictly as it is written, persons who are excluded by this judgment of being citizens of Missouri must be negroes, not mulattoes nor mestizos, nor quadroons. They must be of African descent, not Asiatic, even though they come of the blackest Malays in southeastern Asia. They must have had ancestors, (yet that may be doubtful, if born in slavery, of putative parents, who were slaves, and being slaves, incapable of contracting matrimony, and therefore every child must needs be a bastard, and so, by the common law, nullius filius, and incapable of ancestors.) His ancestors, if he had any, must have been of pure African blood, not mixed with the tawny Moor of Morocco or the dusky Arab of the desert, both of whom had their origin in Asia. They must have been brought to this country, not come voluntarily; and sold, not kept by the importer for his own use, nor given to friends.” He concluded by saying: “And now, upon the whole matter, I give it as my opinion that the free man of color, mentioned in your letter, if born in the United States, is a citizen of the United States, and, if otherwise qualified, is competent, according to the acts of Congress, to be master of a vessel engaged in the coasting trade.”

And here we can see the pure and divine brilliance of the simplicity of our Prophet’s strategy.  The free national constitution declared all MEN free and equal.  Can a MAN be a negro, black, colored or Ethiopian?  The above labels are constructs of an artificial history, and the maxim of law-the doctrine of nullius filius, renders such people incapable of citizenship acquisition outside of the 14th Amendment, as said constructs are not considered MEN.

In conclusion, our Prophet, in expounding on the 14th Amendment, omitted the citizenship clause, and spoke only on the incorporation function of the amendment, in that it allowed for the southern states to be reabsorbed back into the Union. This makes perfect sense, as the foundation of his uplifting teaching to our people is that we are not negroes, and in returning to us the knowledge of our national origin, culture, divine creed, etc., freed us from the perils of nullius filius, and therefore rendered the citizenship clause for us non-applicable, but only if we find ourselves where he left us.  We are not like the States Rights advocates, who are PROTESTING the incorporation doctrine function of the 14th Amendment; as Moorish Americans (properly organized, mobilized and politicized, that is) it simply does not apply to us.

  1. Sheila Seabreeze-Bey says

    It is wonderful to see brothers come together . I hope you have greater purpose that is to Unite and understand as long as negro, black and colored exist on documents , we have not truly been emancipated. Joining the MSTA is the beginning of recognizing we need an actual freedom process. Let us unite for the cause of the entire nation, not just as members of MSTA. This is a new era of time.n

Leave A Reply

Your email address will not be published.