🔔 Why This Amendment Requires Its Own Space
The 14th Amendment is often taught as a moral correction.
A promise.
A civil rights safeguard.
John Quade approaches it differently.
He treats the 14th Amendment as a structural amendment — one that quietly re‑engineered jurisdiction, status, and the relationship between the individual and the state.
Not symbolically.
Operationally.
📌 Editorial Note
John Quade consistently emphasized that the 14th Amendment should not be approached emotionally, politically, or solely as a symbol of oppression, but examined structurally — as a jurisdictional instrument.
Fact: the amendment neither simply “expanded rights” nor imposed control by overt force. Rather, it redefined political standing by establishing a separate category of citizenship (A Legal PERSON as Corporate Entity) operating within a different lane of law — a statutory, legal framework grounded in protection, privileges, and administrative governance, as distinct from standing rooted in inherent or natural rights.
What follows reflects Quade’s insistence on clarity over outrage: an invitation to understand the 14th Amendment not as an attack, but as a pivot — a lawful structural mechanism whose consequences depend on classification, assumption, consent, status, and participation.
🧱 Before the 14th Amendment: Standing and Capacity, Not Only Status
Before Reconstruction, Americans generally understood themselves as:
- Men and women
- State nationals or State citizens
- Bearers of rights that pre‑existed government
Law functioned primarily through Lawful status, standing, and capacity.
A man stood before the court in his own right.
Government power was limited, enumerated, and restrained by jurisdictional boundaries.
📜 What the 14th Amendment Actually Introduced
The opening sentence matters more than the slogans built around it:
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States…”
Quade emphasizes three elements:
- PERSONS (Corporate Entity)
- Subject to the Legal jurisdiction
- Citizens of the UNITED STATES
This was not a clarification.
It was the creation of a new political status.
🧠 Personhood: A Legal Container
In law, a LEGAL PERSON is not synonymous with a man or woman.
It is a legal construct — a container through which rights, duties, and obligations are administered.
The 14th Amendment standardized this container.
From that point forward, access to protection increasingly flowed through personhood, not natural standing.
Rights became administered.
🔄 Protection and Subjection
The Amendment promises equal protection of the laws.
Quade points out the reciprocal reality:
Protection implies jurisdiction — and jurisdiction implies subjection.
You cannot be protected by a system you are not subject to.
Thus, protection becomes the gateway through which authority expands.
🏛️ Federal Jurisdiction Becomes Personal
Prior to the 14th Amendment, federal jurisdiction was limited and specific.
After it:
- Federal authority followed the person
- Jurisdiction became mobile
- Presence replaced place
This shift enabled:
- Incorporation of state law
- Federal oversight of local matters
- Uniform administrative enforcement
Not by force — but by status.
📘 Citizenship as Capacity
Quade reframes modern citizenship.
Not as belonging.
But as capacity.
A citizen of the United States is a legal capacity through which:
- Benefits are accessed
- Obligations are imposed
- Licenses are issued
- Taxes are assessed
Capacity replaces character.
🧾 Why Consent Feels Invisible
Most people do not remember consenting.
Because consent is not emotional — it is procedural.
Birth registration.
Documentation.
Use of benefits.
Licensing.
Each step reinforces status.
The system does not need belief.
Only participation.
⚠️ This Explains Everything Before It
The 14th Amendment does not stand alone.
It explains:
- Why rights feel conditional
- Why licenses are everywhere
- Why property is taxable indefinitely
- Why standing is difficult to assert
- Why courts feel administrative
It is the keystone.
🧭 What This Is — and Is Not
This article does not argue repeal.
It does not deny historical context.
It does not diminish genuine civil rights struggles.
It simply identifies structure.
Understanding structure is not rebellion.
It is literacy.
🔚 A Closing Orientation
John Quade’s insight was not outrage.
It was clarity.
The 14th Amendment did not remove liberty.
It redefined the channel through which liberty is accessed.
Whether that channel now constrains more than it protects is a question each reader must answer for themselves.
But the pivot must first be seen.
🧩 John Quade’s Quote
Part of his Speech “Common Law, Understanding your God given Rights”
“Now the historians, and the boys out there in Hollywood … and the girls … I guess … too … ah … and other various individuals in the media – will all tell us that the 14th Amendment gave citizenship to black people, and the American dream is now possible for them.
Biggest damned lie that ever came down the pipe. Because what the 14th Amendment did … it gave citizenship not as a right, but as a privilege to non-whites. Read Title 42 section 1981 sometime. Go to your local library and pull it down and read it; you’ll get the whole story in there. And all these liberals, neo-Marxists, left-wing, and pseudo-compassionate conservatives who are so concerned about the rights of minorities in this country are liars.
They are vipers, they are thieves, robbers, and rapists of the worst sort. Because what the Congress could have done in 1868 was very simply said the rights, privileges, and immunities of the common law shall not be denied to any person on account of race. But then if they had done that, they would have given black people and every other minority in this country Citizenship as a right of birth and not a privilege!
Now, why is it important? Because in American law, only privileges can be taxed! Rights cannot be taxed; only privileges, benefits, or opportunities can be taxed. Hundreds of court cases to substantiate that.
The only trick for the Congress was …” okay, let’s see … we’ve got all the … ah … negroids, and we’ve got all of the orientals, and some of these South Sea island tribes, and we’ve got the Indians taken care of … how do we get them whites out there man?” “That’s the next thing we got to do … get the whites.” “Get the whites to do what?” “To voluntarily give up their rights, that’s what.” Because they can’t take them away from you. “Ah … piece of cake … piece of cake … the problem’s all taken care of.” — John Quade
📌 End of Series — Editorial Note
With that in mind, one should often invite friends and family to sit with simple Qs:
Why would a man or woman allow a significant portion of their earned income—often twenty to thirty percent—to be withheld for federal and state income taxes traditionally assessed against corporate or statutory entities? Unless they knowingly agreed to be treated within such a classification.
Such questions are not intended to provoke fear or opposition. Its purpose is to encourage curiosity and independent research, leading to a more reflective follow-up inquiry:
Am I being presumed within the system as a corporate or statutory “legal person,” and is that presumption the basis upon which federal and state income taxes are automatically withheld from my paycheck?
When considered honestly, this line of questioning often becomes a starting point for examining issues of status, standing, capacity, and consent—rather than continuing participation by assumption alone.
Facts: From a statutory standpoint, corporate entities and legally defined persons are subject to federal and state income taxation. When an individual is administered within such a classification, taxation proceeds accordingly. Absent a lawful examination or modification of status, this tax treatment continues by default, not because the system is malfunctioning, but because it is functioning as designed within its internal framework — to tax corporate entities.
From this perspective, a lawful correction of status is understood as a distinction between a lawful person—a natural man or woman standing in law—and a legal person, a statutory construct administered within the legal system. Once such a correction is recognized, the individual is no longer presumed to operate within a corporate or statutory classification, and associated tax treatment may change accordingly under applicable law.
🔔 Call to Action
Awareness alone is not enough.
Remedy requires action.
If you now understand the deception, it is essential to take the next step and correct the public record by correcting your political status. Until the record is corrected, the system will continue to presume consent and jurisdiction over you through silence.
To learn how to lawfully and peacefully do this, and to access the proper process and notice:
👉 Correct the records by correcting your political status
🔗 https://tasa.americanstatenationals.org/correct-your-status/
Truth without action leaves the presumption intact.
Correction is how you exit the fiction.
Discussion about this post