Congressional Record -- House


                        THE 14TH AMENDMENT --
             EQUAL PROTECTION LAW OR TOOL OF USURPATION


June 13, 1967, page 15641                                   H7161


 THE 14TH AMENDMENT - EQUAL PROTECTION LAW OR TOOL OF USURPATION

(Mr. Rarick, at the request of Mr. Pryor, was granted permission to
extend his remarks at this point in the Record and to include
extraneous matter.)


Mr. RARICK. Mr. Speaker, arrogantly ignoring clear-cut expressions
in the Constitution of the United States, the declared intent of
its drafters notwithstanding, our unelected Federal judges read out
prohibitions of the Constitution of the United States by adopting
the fuzzy haze of the 14th Amendment to legislate their personal
ideas, prejudices, theories, guilt complexes, aims, and whims.
Through the cooperation of intellectual educators, we have
subjected ourselves to accept destructive use and meaning of words
and phrases. We blindly accept new meanings and changed values to
alter our traditional thoughts.

We have tolerantly permitted the habitual misuse of words to serve
as a vehicle to abandon our foundations and goals. Thus, the
present use and expansion of the 14th Amendment is a sham -- {H7162}
serving as a crutch and hoodwink to precipitate a quasi-legal
approach for overthrow of the tender balances and protections of
limitation found in the Constitution.

But, interestingly enough, the 14th Amendment -- whether ratified or
not -- was but the expression of emotional outpouring of public
sentiment following the War Between Our States.

Its obvious purpose and intent was but to free human beings from
ownership as a chattel by other humans. Its aim was no more than to
free the slaves.

As our politically appointed Federal judiciary proceeds down their
chosen path of chaotic departure from the peoples' government by
substituting their personal law rationalized under the 14th
Amendment, their actions and verbiage brand them and their team as
secessionists -- rebels with pens instead of guns -- seeking to
destroy our Union.

They must be stopped. Public opinion must be aroused. The Union
must and shall be preserved.

Mr. Speaker, I ask to include in the Record, following my remarks,
House Concurrent Resolution 208 of the Louisiana Legislature urging
this Congress to declare the 14th Amendment illegal. Also, I
include in the Record an informative and well-annotated treatise on
the illegality of the 14th Amendment -- the play toy of our
secessionist judges -- which has been prepared by Judge Lander H.
Perez, of Louisiana.

The material referred to follows:

H. Con. Res. 208

A concurrent resolution to expose the unconstitutionality of the
14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States;  to
interpose the sovereignty of the State of Louisiana against the
execution of said amendment in this State;  to memorialize the
Congress of the United States to repeal its joint resolution of
July 28, 1868, declaring that said amendment had been ratified;  and
to provide for the distribution of certified copies of this
resolution.

Whereas the purported 14th Amendment to the United States
Constitution was never lawfully adopted in accordance with the
requirements of the United States Constitution because eleven
states of the Union were deprived of their equal suffrage in the
Senate in violation of Article V, when eleven southern states,
including Louisiana, were excluded from deliberation and decision
in the adoption of the Joint Resolution proposing said 14th
Amendment;  said Resolution was not presented to the President of
the United States in order that the same should take effect, as
required by Article I, Section 7;  the proposed Amendment was not
ratified by three-fourths of the states, but to the contrary
fifteen states of the then thirty-seven states of the Union
rejected the proposed 14th Amendment between the dates of its
submission to the states by the Secretary of State on June 16,
1866, and March 24, 1868, thereby nullifying said Resolution and
making it impossible for ratification by the constitutionally
required three-fourths of such states;  said souther which were
denied their equal suffrage in the Senate had been recognized by
proclamations of the President of the United States to have duly
constituted governments with all the powers which belong to free
states of the Union, and the Legislatures of seven of said southern
states had ratified the 13th Amendment which would have failed of
ratification but for the ratification of said seven southern
states;  and,

Whereas the Reconstruction Acts of Congress unlawfully overthrew
their existing governments, removed their lawfully constituted
legislatures by military force and replaced them with rump
legislatures which carried out military orders and pretended to
ratify the 14th Amendment;  and,

Whereas in spite of the fact that the Secretary of State in his
first proclamation, of July 20, 1868, expressed doubt as to whether
three-fourths of the required states had ratified the 14th
Amendment, Congress nevertheless adopted a resolution on July 28,
1868, unlawfully declaring that three-fourths of the states had
ratified the 14th Amendment and directed the Secretary of State to
so proclaim, said Joint Resolution of Congress and the resulting
proclamation of the Secretary of State included the purported
ratifications of the military enforced rump legislatures of ten
southern states whose lawful legislatures had previously rejected
the said 14th Amendment, and also included purported ratifications
by the legislatures of the States of Ohio and New Jersey, although
they had withdrawn their legislative ratifications several months
previously, all of which proves absolutely that said 14th Amendment
was not adopted in accordance with the mandatory constitutional
requirements set forth in Article V of the Constitution and,
therefore, the Constitution strikes with nullity the purported 14th
Amendment.

Now therefore be it resolved by the Legislature of Louisiana, the
House of Representatives and the Senate concurring:

(1) That the Legislature go on record as exposing the
unconstitutionality of the 14th Amendment, and interposes the
sovereignty of the State of Louisiana against the execution of said
14th Amendment against the State of Louisiana and its people;

(2) That the Legislature of Louisiana opposes the use of the
invalid 14th Amendment by the Federal courts to impose further
unlawful edicts and hardships on its people;

(3) That the Congress of the United States be memorialized by this
Legislature to repeal its unlawful Joint Resolution of July 28,
1868, declaring that three-fourths of the states had ratified the
14th Amendment to the United States Constitution.

(4) That the Legislatures of the other states of the Union be
memorialized to give serious study and consideration to take
similar action against the validity of the 14th Amendment and to
uphold and support the Constitution of the United States which
strikes said 14th Amendment with nullity;

(5) That copies of this Resolution, duly certified, together with
a copy of the treatise on "The Unconstitutionality of the 14th
Amendment" by Judge L. H. Perez, be forwarded to the Governors and
Secretaries of State of each state in the Union, and to the
Secretaries of the United States Senate and House of Congress, and
to the Louisiana Congressional Delegation, a copy hereof to be
published in the Congressional Record.


Vail M. Delony,
Speaker of the House of Representatives.

C. C. Aycock,
Lieutenant Governor and President of the Senate.



            The 14th Amendment is Unconstitutional


The purported 14th Amendment to the United States is and should be
held to be ineffective, invalid, null, void and unconstitutional
for the following reasons:

1. The Joint Resolution proposing said Amendment was not submitted
to or adopted by a Constitutional Congress. Article I, Section 3,
and Article V, of the U.S. Constitution.

2. The Joint Resolution was not submitted to the President for his
approval. Article I, Section 7.

3. The proposed 14th Amendment was rejected by more than one-fourth
of all the states then in the Union, and it was never ratified by
three-fourths of all the States in the Union. Article V.


              I. The Unconstitutional Congress

The U.S. Constitution provides:

Article I, Section 3, "The Senate of the United States shall be
composed of two Senators from each State * * * "

Article V provides: "No State, without its consent, shall be
deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate."

The fact that 23 Senators had been unlawfully excluded from the U.S.
Senate, in order to secure a two-thirds vote for the adoption of
the Joint Resolution proposing the 14th Amendment, is shown by
Resolutions of protest adopted by the following State Legislatures:

The New Jersey Legislature by Resolution of March 27, 1868,
protested as follows:

"The said proposed amendment not having yet received the assent of
the three-fourths of the states, which is necessary to make it
valid, the natural and constitutional right of this state to
withdraw its assent is undeniable * * * ."

"That it being necessary by the Constitution that every amendment
to the same should be proposed by two-thirds of both houses of
Congress, the authors of said proposition, for the purpose of
securing the assent of the requisite majority, determined to, and
did, exclude from the said two houses eighty representatives from
eleven states of the union, upon the pretense that there were no
such states in the Union;  but, finding that two-thirds of the
remainder of the said houses could not be brought to assent to the
said proposition, they deliberately formed and carried out the
design of mutilating the integrity of the United States Senate, and
without any pretext or justification, other than the possession of
the power, without the right, and in the palpable violation of the
constitution, ejected a member of their own body, representing this
state, and thus practically denied to New Jersey its equal suffrage
in the senate, and thereby nominally secured the vote of two-thirds
of the said houses." [1]

The Alabama Legislature protested against being deprived of
representation in the Senate of the U.S. Congress. [2]

The Texas Legislature by Resolution on October 15, 1866, protested
as follows:

"The Amendment to the Constitution proposed by this joint
resolution as Article XIV is presented to the Legislature of Texas
for its action thereon, under Article V of that Constitution. This
Article V, providing the mode of making amendments to that
instrument, contemplates the participation by all the States
through their representatives in Congress, in proposing amendments.

As representatives from nearly one-third of the States were
excluded from the Congress proposing the amendments, the
constitutional requirement was not complied with;  it was violated
in letter and in spirit;  and the proposing of these amendments to
States which were excluded from all participation in their
initiation in Congress, is a nullity." [3]

The Arkansas Legislature, by Resolution on December 17, 1866,
protested as follows:

"The Constitution authorized two-thirds of both houses of Congress
to propose amendments;  and, as eleven States were excluded from
deliberation and decision upon the one now submitted, the
conclusion is inevitable that it is not proposed by legal
authority, but in palpable violation of the Constitution." [4]

{H7163}

The Georgia Legislature, by Resolution on November 9, 1866,
protested as follows:

"Since the reorganization of the State government, Georgia has
elected Senators and Representatives. So has every other State.
They have been arbitrarily refused admission to their seats, not on
the ground that the qualifications of the members elected did not
conform to the fourth paragraph, second section, first Article of
the Constitution, but because their right of representation was
denied by a portion of the States having equal but not greater
rights than themselves. They have in fact been forcibly excluded;
and, inasmuch as all legislative power granted by the States to the
Congress is defined, and this power of exclusion is not among the
powers expressly or by implication, the assemblage, at the capitol,
of representatives from a portion of the States, to the exclusion
of the representatives of another portion, cannot be a
constitutional Congress, when the representation of each State
forms an integral part of the whole.

"This amendment is tendered to Georgia for ratification, under
that power in the Constitution which authorizes two-thirds of the
Congress to propose amendments. We have endeavored to establish
that Georgia had a right, in the first place, as a part of the
Congress, to act upon the question, 'Shall these amendments be
proposed?' Every other excluded State had the same right.

"The first constitutional privilege has been arbitrarily denied.
Had these amendments been submitted to a constitutional Congress,
they would never have been proposed to the States. Two-thirds of
the whole Congress never would have proposed to eleven States
voluntarily to reduce their political power in the Union, and at
the same time, disfranchise the larger portion of the intellect,
integrity, and patriotism of eleven co-equal States". [5]

The Florida Legislature, by Resolution of December 5, 1866,
protested as follows:

"Let this alteration be made in the organic system and some new
and more startling demands may or may not be required by the
predominant party previous to allowing the ten States now
unlawfully and unconstitutionally deprived of their right of
representation is guaranteed by the Constitution of this country
and there is no act, not even that of rebellion, can deprive them
of its exercise." [6]

The South Carolina Legislature by Resolution of November 27, 1866,
protested as follows:

"Eleven of the Southern States, including South Carolina, are
deprived of their representation in Congress. Although their
Senators and Representatives have been duly elected and have
presented themselves for the purpose of taking their seats, their
credentials have, in most instances, been laid upon the table
without being read, or have been referred to a committee, who have
failed to make any report on the subject. In short, Congress has
refused to exercise its Constitutional functions, and decide either
upon the election, the return, or the qualification of these
selected by the States and people to represent us. Some of the
Senators and Representatives from the Southern States were prepared
to take the test oath, but even these have been persistently
ignored, and kept out of the seats to which they were entitled
under the Constitution and laws.

"Hence this amendment has not been proposed by 'two-thirds of both
Houses' of a legally constituted Congress, and is not,
Constitutionally or legitimately, before a single Legislature for
ratification." [7]

The North Carolina Legislature protested by Resolution of December
6, 1866, as follows:

"The Federal Constitution declares, in substance, that Congress
shall consist of a House of Representative, composed of members
apportioned among the respective States in the ratio of their
population and of a Senate, composed of two members from each
State. And in the Article which concerns Amendments, it is
expressly provided that 'no State, without its consent, shall be
deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.' The contemplated
Amendment was not proposed to the States by a Congress thus
constituted. At the time of its adoption, the eleven seceding
States were deprived of representation both in the Senate and
House, although they all, except the State of Texas, had Senators
and Representatives duly elected and claiming their privileges
under the Constitution. In consequence of this, these States had no
voice on the important question of proposing the Amendment. Had
they been allowed to give their votes, the proposition would
doubtless have failed to command the required two-thirds majority.

* * *

If the votes of these States are necessary to a valid ratification
of the Amendment, they were equally necessary on the question of
proposing it to the States;  for it would be difficult, in the
opinion of the Committee, to show by what process in logic men of
intelligence could arrive at a different conclusion." [8]


              II. Joint Resolution Ineffective

Article I, Section 7 provides that not only every bill which has
been passed by the House of Representatives and the Senate of the
United States Congress, but that:

"Every order, resolution, or vote to which the concurrence of the
Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a
question of adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the
United States;  and before the same shall take effect, shall be
approved by him, or being disapproved by him shall be repassed by
two-thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to
the rules and limitations prescribed in the case of a bill."

The Joint Resolution proposing the 14th Amendment [9] was never
presented to the President of the United States for his approval,
as President Andrew Johnson stated in his message on June 22, 1866.
[10] Therefore the Joint Resolution did not take effect.


          III. Proposed Amendment Never Ratified
               by Three-Fourths of the States

1. Pretermitting the ineffectiveness of said resolution, as above,
fifteen (15) States out of the then thirty seven (37) States of the
Union rejected the proposed 14th Amendment between the date of its
submission to the States by the Secretary of State on June 16,
1866, and March 24, 1868, thereby further nullifying said
resolution and making it impossible for its ratification by the
constitutionally required three-fourths of such States, as shown by
the rejections thereof by the Legislatures of the following States:

Texas rejected the 14th Amendment on October 27, 1866. [11]
Georgia rejected the 14th Amendment on November 9, 1866. [12]
Florida rejected the 14th Amendment on December 6, 1866. [13]
Alabama rejected the 14th Amendment on December 7, 1866. [14]
Arkansas rejected the 14th Amendment on December 17, 1866. [15]
North Carolina rejected the 14th Amendment on December 17, 1866. [16]
South Carolina rejected the 14th Amendment on December 20, 1866. [17]
Kentucky rejected the 14th Amendment on January 8, 1867. [18]
Virginia rejected the 14th Amendment on January 9, 1867. [19]
Louisiana rejected the 14th Amendment on February 6, 1867. [20]
Delaware rejected the 14th Amendment on February 7, 1867. [21]
Maryland rejected the 14th Amendment on March 23, 1867. [22]
Mississippi rejected the 14th Amendment on January 31, 1867. [23]
Ohio rejected the 14th Amendment on January 15, 1868. [24]
New Jersey rejected the 14th Amendment on March 24, 1868. [25]


There was no question that all of the Southern states which
rejected the 14th Amendment had legally constituted governments,
were fully recognized by the federal government, and were
functioning as member states of the Union at the time of their
rejection.

President Andrew Johnson in his Veto message of March 2, 1867, [26]
pointed out that:

"It is not denied that the States in question have each of them an
actual government with all the powers, executive, judicial, and
legislative, which properly belong to a free State. They are
organized like the other States of the Union, and, like them, they
make, administer, and execute the laws which concern their domestic
affairs."

If further proof were needed that these States were operating under
legally constituted governments as member States in the Union, the
ratification of the 13th Amendment by December 8, 1865, undoubtedly
supplies this official proof.  If the Southern States were not
member States of the Union, the 13th Amendment would not have been
submitted to their Legislatures for ratification.


2. The 13th Amendment to the United States Constitution was
proposed by Joint Resolution of Congress [27] and was approved
February 1, 1865, by President Abraham Lincoln, as required by
Article I, Section 7, of the United States Constitution. The
President's signature is affixed to the Resolution.

The 13th Amendment was ratified by 27 states of the then 36 states
of the Union, including the Southern States of Virginia, Louisiana,
Arkansas, South Carolina, Alabama, North Carolina, and Georgia.
This is shown by the Proclamation of the Secretary {H7164} of State
December 18, 1865. [28] Without the votes of these 7 Southern State
Legislatures the 13th Amendment would have failed. There can be no
doubt but that the ratification by these 7 Southern States of the
13th Amendment again established the fact that their Legislatures
and State governments were duly and lawfully constituted and
functioning as such under their State Constitutions.


3. Furthermore, on April 2, 1866, President Andrew Johnson issued
a proclamation that, "the insurrection which heretofore existed in
the States of Georgia, South Carolina, Virginia, North Carolina,
Tennessee, Alabama, Louisiana, Arkansas, Mississippi, and Florida
is at an end, and is henceforth to be so regarded." [29]

On August 20, 1866, President Andrew Johnson issued another
proclamation [30] pointing out the fact that the House of
Representatives and Senate had adopted identical Resolutions on
July 22nd [31] and July 25th, 1861, [33] that the Civil War forced by
disunionists of the Southern States, was not waged for the purpose
of conquest or to overthrow the rights and established institutions
of those States, but to defend and maintain the supremacy of the
Constitution and to preserve the Union with all the equality and
rights of the several states unimpaired, and that as soon as these
objects are accomplished, the war ought to cease. The President's
proclamation on April 2, 1866, [34] declared the insurrection in the
other southern States, except Texas, no longer existed. On August
20, 1866, [35] the President proclaimed that the insurrection in the
State of Texas had been completely ended;  and his proclamation
continued: "The insurrection which heretofore existed in the State
of Texas is at an end, and is to be henceforth so regarded in that
State, as in the other States before named in which the said
insurrection was proclaimed to be at an end by the aforesaid
proclamation of the second day of April, one thousand, eight
hundred and sixty-six.

"And I do further proclaim that the said insurrection is at an
end, and that peace, order, tranquility, and civil authority now
exist, in and throughout the whole of the United States of
America."


4. When the State of Louisiana rejected the 14th Amendment on
February 6, 1867, making the 10th State to have rejected the same,
or more than one-fourth of the total number of [36] states of the
Union as of that date, thus leaving less than three-fourths of the
States possibly to ratify the same, the Amendment failed of
ratification in fact and in law, and it could not have been revived
except by a new Joint Resolution of the Senate and House of
Representatives in accordance with Constitutional requirement.


5. Faced with the positive failure of ratification of the 14th
Amendment, both Houses of Congress passed over the veto of the
President three Acts known as the Reconstruction Acts, between the
dates of March 2 and July 19, 1867, especially the third of said
Acts, 15 Stat. p. 14 etc., designed illegally to remove with
"Military force" the lawfully constituted State Legislatures of
the 10 Southern States of Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina,
Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas, Louisiana and
Texas. In President Andrew Johnson's Veto message on the
Reconstruction Act of March 2, 1867, [36] he pointed out these
unconstitutionalities:

"If ever the American citizen should be left to the free exercise
of his own judgment, it is when he is engaged in the work of
forming the fundamental law under which he is to live. That work is
his work, and it cannot be properly taken out of his hands. All
this legislation proceeds upon the contrary assumption that the
people of these States shall have no constitution, except such as
may be arbitrarily dictated by Congress, and formed under the
restraint of military rule. A plain statement of facts makes this
evident.

"In all these States there are existing constitutions, framed in
the accustomed way by the people.  Congress, however, declares that
these constitutions are not 'loyal and republican' and requires the
people to form them anew.  What, then, in the opinion of Congress,
is necessary to make the constitution of a State 'loyal and
republican?' The original act answers this question: 'It is
universal negro suffrage, a question which the federal Constitution
leaves exclusively to the States themselves. All this legislative
machinery of martial law, military coercion, and political
disfranchisement is avowedly for that purpose and none other.
The existing constitutions of the ten States conform to the
acknowledged standards of loyalty and republicanism. Indeed, if
there are degrees in republican forms of government, their
constitutions are more republican now, than when these States --
four of which were members of the original thirteen --
first became members of the Union."

In President Andrew Johnson's Veto message on the Reconstruction
Act on July 19, 1867, [37] he pointed out various
unconstitutionalities as follows:

"The veto of the original bill of the 2nd of March was based on two
distinct grounds, the interference of Congress in matters strictly
appertaining to the reserved powers of the States, and the
establishment of military tribunals for the trial of citizens in
time of peace.


          *          *          *          *          *


"A singular contradiction is apparent here.  Congress declares
these local State governments to be illegal governments, and then
provides that these illegal governments shall be carried on by
federal officers, who are to perform the very duties on its own
officers by this illegal State authority.  It certainly would be a
novel spectacle if Congress should attempt to carry on a legal
State government by the agency of its own officers.  It is yet more
strange that Congress attempts to sustain and carry on an illegal
State government by the same federal agency.


           *          *          *          *          *


"It is now too late to say that these ten political communities
are not States of this Union.  Declarations to the contrary made in
these three acts are contradicted again and again by repeated acts
of legislation enacted by Congress from the year 1861 to the year
1867.

"During that period, while these States were in actual rebellion,
and after that rebellion was brought to a close, they have been
again and again recognized as States of the Union. Representation
has been apportioned to them as States. They have been divided into
judicial districts for the holding of district and circuit courts
of the United States, as States of the Union only can be
districted. The last act on this subject was passed July 23, 1866,
by which every one of these ten States was arranged into districts
and circuits.

"They have been called upon by Congress to act through their
legislatures upon at least two amendments to the Constitution of
the United States. As States they have ratified one amendment,
which required the vote of twenty seven States of the thirty six
then composing the Union. When the requisite twenty-seven votes
were given in favor of that amendment -- seven of which votes were
given by seven of these ten States -- it was proclaimed to a part of
the Constitution of the United States, and slavery was declared no
longer to exist within the United States or any place subject to
their jurisdiction. If these seven States were not legal States of
the Union, it follows as an inevitable consequence that in some of
the States slavery yet exists. It does not exist in these seven
States, for they have abolished it also in their State
constitutions;  but Kentucky not having done so, it would still
remain in that State. But, in truth, if this assumption that these
States have no legal State governments be true, then the abolition
of slavery by these illegal governments binds no one, for Congress
now denies to these States the power to abolish slavery by denying
to them the power to elect a legal State legislature, or to frame
a constitution for any purpose, even for such a purpose as the
abolition of slavery.

"As to the other constitutional amendment having reference to
suffrage, it happens that these States have not accepted it. The
consequence is, that it has never been proclaimed or understood,
even by Congress, to be a part of the Constitution of the United
States. The Senate of the United States has repeatedly given its
sanction to the appointment of judges, district attorneys, and
marshals for every one of these States;  yet, if they are not legal
States, not one of these judges is authorized to hold a court.
So, too, both houses of Congress have passed appropriation bills to
pay all these judges, attorneys, and officers of the United States for
exercising their functions in these States. Again, in the machinery
of the internal revenue laws, all these States are districted, not
as 'Territories,' but as 'States.'

"So much for continuous legislative recognition. The instances
cited, however, fall far short of all that might be enumerated.
Executive recognition, as is well known, has been frequent and
unwavering. The same may be said as to judicial recognition through
the Supreme Court of the United States.


          *          *          *          *          *


"To me these considerations are conclusive of the
unconstitutionality of this part of the bill before me, and I
earnestly commend their consideration to the deliberate judgment
of Congress. [And now to the Court.]

"Within a period less than a year the legislation of Congress has
attempted to strip the executive department of the government of
its essential powers. The Constitution, and the oath provided in
it, devolve upon the President the power and duty to see that the
laws are faithfully executed. The Constitution, in order to carry
out this power, gives him the choice of the agents, and makes them
subject to his control and supervision. But in the execution of
these laws the constitutional obligation upon the President remains,
but the powers to exercise that constitutional duty is effectually
taken away. The military commander is, as to the power of
appointment, made to take the place of its President, and the
General of the Army the place of the Senate;  and any attempt on the
part of the President to assert his own constitutional power may,
under pretense of law, be met by official insubordination. It is to
feared that these military officers, looking to the authority given
by these laws rather than to the letter of the Constitution, will
recognize no authority but {H7165} the commander of the district
and the General of the Army.

"If there were no other objection than this to this proposed
legislation, it would be sufficient."

No one can contend that the Reconstruction Acts were ever upheld as
being valid and constitutional.

They were brought into question, but the Courts either avoided
decision, or were prevented by Congress from finally adjudicating
upon their unconstitutionality.

In Mississippi v. President Andrew Johnson (4 Wall. 475-502), where
the suit sought to enjoin the President of the United States from
enforcing provisions of the Reconstruction Acts, the U.S. Supreme
Court held that the President cannot be enjoined because, for the
Judicial Department of the government to attempt to enforce the
performance of the duties by the President might be justly
characterized, in the language of Chief Justice Marshall, as "an
absurd and excessive extravagance." The Court further said that if
the Court granted the injunction against the enforcement of the
Reconstruction Acts, and if the President refused obedience, it is
needless to observe that the Court is without power to enforce its
process.

In a joint action, the States of Georgia and Mississippi brought
suit against the President and the Secretary of War, (6 Wall. 50-
78, 154 U.S. 554).

The Court said that:

The bill then sets forth that the intent and design of the Acts of
Congress, as apparent on their face and by their terms, are to
overthrow and annul this existing State government, and to erect
another and different government in its place, unauthorized by the
Constitution and in defiance of its guaranties;  and that, in
furtherance of this intent and design, the defendants, the
Secretary of War, the General of the Army, and Major General Pope,
acting under orders of the President, are about setting in motion
a portion of the army to take military possession of the State, and
threaten to subvert her government and subject her people to
military rule;  that the State is holding inadequate means to resist
the power and force of the Executive Department of the United
States;  and she therefore insists that such protection can, and
ought to be afforded by a decree or order of this court in the
premises."

The applications for injunction by these two states to prohibit the
Executive Department from carrying out the provisions of the
Reconstruction Acts directed to the overthrow of their government,
including this dissolution of their State legislatures, were denied
on the grounds that the organization of the government into three
great departments, the executive, legislative, and judicial,
carried limitations of the powers of each by the Constitution. This
case went the same way as the previous case of Mississippi against
President Johnson, and was dismissed without adjudicating upon the
constitutionality of the Reconstruction Acts.

In another case, Ex parte William H. McCardle (7 Wall. 506-515), a
petition for the writ of habeas corpus for unlawful restraint by
military force of a citizen not in the military service of the
United States, was before the United States Supreme Court. After the
case was argued and taken under advisement, and before conference
in regard to the decision to be made, Congress passed an emergency
Act, (Act March 27, 1868, 15 Stat. at L. 44), vetoed by the
President and repassed over his veto, repealing the jurisdiction of
the U.S. Supreme Court in such case. Accordingly, the Supreme Court
dismissed the appeal without passing upon the constitutionality of
the Reconstruction Acts, under which the non-military without
benefit of writ of habeas corpus, in violation of Section 9,
Article I, of the U.S. Constitution which prohibits the suspension
of the writ of habeas corpus.

That Act of Congress placed the Reconstruction Acts beyond judicial
recourse and avoided tests of constitutionality.

It is recorded that one of the Supreme Court Justices, Grier,
protested against the action of the Court as follows:

"This case was fully argued in the beginning of this month. It is
a case which involves the liberty and rights, not only of the
appellant but of millions of our fellow citizens. The country and
the parties had a right to expect that it would receive the
immediate and solemn attention of the court. By the postponement of
this case we shall subject ourselves, whether justly or unjustly,
to the imputation that we have evaded the performance of a duty
imposed on us by the Constitution, and waited for Legislative
interposition to supersede our action, and relieve us from
responsibility. I am not willing to be a partaker of the eulogy or
opprobrium that may follow. I can only say ... I am ashamed that
such opprobrium should be cast upon the court and that it cannot be
refuted."

The ten States were organized into Military Districts under the
unconstitutional "Reconstruction Acts," their lawfully
constituted Legislatures illegally were removed by "military
force," and they were replaced by rump, so-called Legislatures,
seven of which carried out military orders and pretended to ratify
the 14th Amendment, as follows:

Arkansas on April 6, 1868. [38]
North Carolina on July 2, 1868. [39]
Florida on June 9, 1868. [40]
Louisiana on July 9, 1868. [41]
South Carolina on July 9, 1868. [42]
Alabama on July 13, 1868. [43] and
Georgia on July 21, 1868. [44]


6. Of the above 7 States whose Legislatures were removed and
replaced by rump, so-called Legislatures, six (6) Legislatures of
the States of Louisiana, Arkansas, South Carolina, Alabama, North
Carolina, and Georgia had ratified the 13th Amendment as shown by
the Secretary of State's Proclamation of December 18, 1865, without
which 6 States' ratifications, the 13th Amendment could not and
would not have been ratified, because said 6 States made a total of
27 out of 36 States, or exactly three-fourths of the number required
by Article V of the Constitution for ratification.

Furthermore, governments of the States of Louisiana and Arkansas
had been re-established under a Proclamation issued by President
Abraham Lincoln on December 8, 1863. [45]

The government of North Carolina had been re-established under a
Proclamation issued by President Andrew Johnson dated May 29,
1865. [46]

The government of Georgia had been re-established under a
Proclamation issued by President Andrew Johnson dated June 17,
1865. [47]

The government of Alabama had been re-established under a
Proclamation issued by President Andrew Johnson dated June 21,
1865. [48]

The government of South Carolina had been re-established under a
Proclamation issued by President Andrew Johnson dated June 30,
1865. [49]

These three "Reconstruction Acts" [50], under which the above State
Legislatures were illegally removed and unlawful rump or puppet so-
called Legislatures were substituted in a mock effort to ratify the
14th Amendment, were unconstitutional, null and void, ab initio,
and all acts done thereunder were also null and void, including the
purported ratification of the 14th Amendment by said 6 Southern
puppet Legislatures of Arkansas, North Carolina, Louisiana, South
Carolina, Alabama, and Georgia.

Those Reconstruction Acts of Congress, and all acts and things
unlawfully done thereunder, were in violation of Article IV, Section
4 of the United States Constitution, which required the United
States to guarantee a republican form of government. They violated
Article I, Section 3, and Article V of the Constitution, which
entitled every State in the Union to two Senators, because under
provisions of these unlawful Acts of Congress, 10 States were
deprived of having two Senators, or equal suffrage in the Senate.


7. The Secretary of State expressed doubt as to whether three-
fourths of the required states had ratified the 14th Amendment, as
shown by his Proclamation of July 20, 1868. [51] Promptly on July 21,
1868, a Joint Resolution [52] was adopted by the Senate and House of
Representatives declaring that three-fourths of the several States
of the Union had ratified the 14th Amendment. That resolution,
however, included the purported ratifications by the unlawful
puppet Legislatures of 5 States -- Arkansas, North Carolina,
Louisiana, South Carolina, and Alabama -- which had previously
rejected the 14th Amendment by action of their lawfully constituted
Legislatures, as above shown. This Joint Resolution assumed to
perform the function of the Secretary of State in whom Congress, by
Act of April 20, 1818, had vested the function of issuing such
proclamation declaring the ratification of Constitutional
Amendments.

The Secretary of State bowed to the action of Congress and issued
his Proclamation of July 28, 1868, [53] in which he stated that he was
acting under authority of the Act of April 20, 1818, but pursuant
to said Resolution of July 21, 1868. He listed three-fourths or so
of the then 37 states as having ratified the 14th Amendment,
including the purported ratification of the unlawful puppet
Legislatures of the States of Arkansas, North Carolina, Louisiana,
South Carolina, and Alabama. Without said 5 unlawful purported
ratifications there would have been only 25 states left to ratify
out of 37, when a minimum of 28 states was required by three-fourths
of the States of the Union.

The Joint Resolution of Congress and the resulting Proclamation of
the Secretary of State also included purported ratifications by the
States of Ohio and New Jersey, although the Proclamation recognized
the fact that the Legislatures of said states, several months
previously, had withdrawn their ratifications and effectively
rejected the 14th Amendment in January, 1868, and April, 1868.

Therefore, deducting these two States from the purported
ratifications of the 14th Amendment, only 23 State ratifications at
most could be claimed;  whereas the ratifications of 28 States, or
three-fourths of 37 {H7166} States in the Union, were required to
ratify the 14th Amendment.

From all of the above documented historic facts, it is inescapable
that the 14th Amendment never was validly adopted as an Article of
the Constitution, that it has no legal effect, and it should be
declared by the Courts to be unconstitutional, and therefore, null,
void and of no effect.


    The Constitution Strikes the 14th Amendment with Nullity

The defenders of the 14th Amendment contend that the U.S. Supreme
Court has finally upon its validity.  Such is not the case.
In what is considered the leading case, Coleman v. Miller, 307 U.S.
448, 59 S.Ct. 972, the U.S. Supreme Court did not uphold the
validity of the 14th Amendment.

In that case, the Court brushed aside constitutional questions as
though they did not exist. For instance, the Court made the
statement that:

"The legislatures of Georgia, North Carolina and South Carolina
had rejected the amendment in November and December, 1866. New
governments were erected in those States (and in others) under the
direction of Congress. The new legislatures ratified the amendment,
that of North Carolina on July 4, 1868, that of South Carolina on
July 9, 1868, and that of Georgia on July 21, 1868."

And the Court gave no consideration to the fact that Georgia, North
Carolina and South Carolina were three of the original States of
the Union with valid and existing constitutions on an equal footing
with the other original States and those later admitted into the
Union.

What constitutional right did Congress have to remove those State
governments and their legislatures under unlawful military power
set up by the unconstitutional "Reconstruction Acts," which had
for their purpose, the destruction and removal of these legal State
governments and the nullification of the Constitutions?

The facts that these three States and seven other Southern States
had existing Constitutions;  were recognized as States of the Union,
again and again;  had been divided into judicial districts for
holding their district and circuit courts of the United States;  had
been called by Congress to act through their legislatures upon two
Amendments, the 13th and 14th, and by their ratifications had
actually made possible the adoption of the 13th Amendment;  as well
as their state governments having been re-established under
Presidential Proclamations, as shown by President Andrew Johnson's
Veto message and proclamations, were all brushed aside by the Court
in Coleman by the statement: "New governments were erected in
those States (and in others) under the direction of Congress," and
that these new legislatures ratified the Amendment.

The U.S. Supreme Court overlooked that it previously had held that
at no time were these Southern States out of the Union. White v.
Hart (1871), 13 Wall. 646, 654.

In Coleman, the Court did not adjudicate upon the invalidity of the
Acts of Congress which set aside those State Constitutions and
abolished their State legislatures, -- the Court simply referred to
the fact that their legally constituted legislatures had rejected
the 14th Amendment and that the "new legislatures" had ratified
the Amendment.

The Court overlooked the fact, too, that the State of Virginia was
also one of the original States with its Constitution and
Legislature in full operation under its civil government at the
time.

The Court also ignored the fact that the other six Southern States,
which were given the same treatment by Congress under the
unconstitutional "Reconstruction Acts", all had legal
constitutions and a republican form of government in each State, as
was recognized by Congress by its admission of those States into
the Union. The Court certainly must take judicial cognizance of the
fact that before a new State is admitted by Congress into the
Union, Congress enacts an Enabling Act to enable the inhabitants of
the territory to adopt a Constitution to set up a republican form
of government as a condition precedent to the admission of the
state into the Union, and upon approval of such Constitution,
Congress then passes the Act of Admission of such state.

All this was ignored and brushed aside by the Court in the Coleman
case. However, in Coleman the Court inadvertently said this:

"Whenever official notice is received at the Department of State
that any amendment proposed to the Constitution of the United
States has been adopted, according to the provisions of the
Constitution, the Secretary of State shall forthwith cause the
amendment to be published, with his certificate, specifying the
States by which the same may have been adopted, and that the same
has become valid, to all intents and purposes, as a part of the
Constitution of the United States."

In Hawke v. Smith (1920), 253 U.S. 221, 40 S.Ct. 227, the U.S.
Supreme Court unmistakably held:

"The fifth article is a grant of authority by the people to
Congress. The determination of the method of ratification is the
exercise of a national power specifically granted by the
Constitution;  that power is conferred upon Congress, and is limited
to two methods, by action of the Legislatures of three-fourths of
the states. Dodge v. Woolsey, 18 How. 331, 15 L.Ed. 401. The
framers of the Constitution might have adopted a different method.
Ratification might have been left to a vote of the people, or to
some authority of government other than that selected. The language
of the article is plain, and admits of no doubt in its
interpretation. It is not the function of courts or legislative
bodies, national or State, to alter the method which the
Constitution has fixed."

We submit that in none of the cases, in which the court avoided the
constitutional issues involved in the composition of the Congress
which adopted the Joint Resolution for the 14th Amendment, did the
Court pass upon the constitutionality of the Congress which
purported to adopt the Joint Resolution for the 14th Amendment,
with 80 Representatives and 23 Senators, in effect, forcibly
ejected or denied their seats, and their votes on the Joint
Resolution proposing the Amendment, in order to pass the same by a
two-thirds vote, as pointed out in the New Jersey Legislature
Resolution on March 27, 1868.

The constitutional requirements set forth in Article V of the
Constitution permit the Congress to propose amendments only
whenever two-thirds of both houses as then constituted without
forcible ejections.

Such a fragmentary Congress also violated the constitutional
requirements of Article V that no State, without its consent,
shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

There is no such thing as giving life to an amendment illegally
proposed or never legally ratified by three-fourths of the states.
There is no such thing as amendment by laches;  no such thing as
amendment by waiver;  no such thing as amendment by acquiescence;
and no such thing as amendment by any other means whatsoever except
the means specified in Article V of the Constitution itself.

It does not suffice to say that there have been hundreds of cases
decided under the 14th Amendment to supply the constitutional
deficiencies in its proposal or ratification as required by Article
V. If hundreds of litigants did not question the validity of the
14th Amendment, or questioned the same perfunctorily without
submitting documentary proof of the facts of record which made its
purported adoption unconstitutional, their failure cannot change
the Constitution for the millions in America. The same thing is
true of laches;  the same thing is true of acquiescence;  the same
thing is true of ill-considered court decisions.

To ascribe constitutional life to an alleged amendment which never
came into being according to specific methods laid down in Article
V cannot be done without doing violence to Article V itself. This
is true, because the only question open to the courts is whether
the alleged 14th Amendment became a part of the Constitution
through a method required by Article V. Anything beyond that which
a court is called upon to hold, in order to validate an amendment,
would be equivalent to writing into Article V another mode of the
amendment which has never been authorized by the people of the
United States.

On this point, therefore, the question is, was the 14th Amendment
proposed and ratified in accordance with Article V?

In answering this question, it is of no real moment that decisions
have been rendered in which the parties did not contest or submit
proper evidence, or the Court assumed that there was a 14th
Amendment. If a statute never in fact passed by Congress, through
some error of administration and printing got in the published
reports of the statutes, and if under such supposed statute courts
had levied punishment upon a number of persons charged under it,
and if the error in the published volume was discovered and the
fact became known that no such statute had ever passed in Congress,
it is unthinkable that the Courts would continue administer
punishment in similar cases, on a nonexistent statute because prior
decisions had done so. If that be true as to a statute, we need only
realize the greater truth when the principle is applied to the
solemn question of the contents of the Constitution.

While the defects in the method of proposing and the subsequent
method of computing "ratification" are briefed elsewhere, it
should be noted that the failure to comply with Article V began
with the first action by Congress. The very Congress which proposed
the alleged 14th Amendment under the first part of the Article V
was itself, at that very time, violating the last part as well as
the first part of Article V of the Constitution. We shall see how
this was done.

There is one, and only one, provision of the Constitution of the
United States which is forever immutable -- which can never be
changed or expunged. The Courts cannot alter it;  the executives
cannot change it;  the Congress cannot change it;  the States
themselves -- even all the States in perfect concert -- cannot amend
it in any manner whatsoever, whether they act through conventions
called for the purpose, or through their legislatures. Not even the
unanimous vote of every voter in the United States could amend this
provision. It is a perpetual fixture in the Constitution, so
perpetual and so fixed that, if the people of the United States
desired to change or exclude it, they would be compelled to abolish
the Constitution and start afresh.

The unalterable provision is this: "that no State, without its
consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate."

A State, by its own consent, may waive this right of equal
suffrage, but that is the only legal method by which a failure to
accord this immutable right of equal suffrage in the Senate can be
justified.  Certainly not by forcible ejection and denial by a
majority in Congress, as was done for the adoption of the Joint
Resolution for the 14th Amendment.

{H7167}

Statements by the Court in the Coleman case that Congress
was left in complete control of the mandatory process, and
therefore it was a political affair for Congress to decide if an
amendment had been ratified, does not square with Article V of the
Constitution which shows no intention to leave Congress in charge
of deciding whether there has been a ratification. Even a
constitutionally recognized Congress is given but one volition in
Article V, that is, to vote whether to propose and Amendment on its
own initiative. The remaining steps by Congress are mandatory.
Congress shall propose amendments;  if the Legislatures of two-
thirds of the States make application, Congress shall call a
convention. For the Court to give Congress any power, beyond that to
be found in Article V, is to write the new material into Article V.
It would be inconceivable that the Congress of the United States
could propose, compel submission to, and then give life to an
invalid amendment by resolving that its effort had succeeded --
regardless of compliance with the positive provisions of Article V.

It should need no further citations to sustain the proposition that
neither the Joint Resolution proposing the 14th Amendment, nor its
ratification by the required three-fourths of the States in the
Union, were in compliance with the requirements of Article V of the
Constitution.

When the mandatory provisions of the Constitution are violated, the
Constitution itself strikes with nullity the Act that did violence
to its provisions. Thus, the Constitution strikes with nullity the
purported 14th Amendment.

The Courts, bound by oath to support the Constitution, should
review all of the evidence herein submitted and measure the facts
proving violations of the mandatory provisions of the Constitution
with Article V, and finally render judgment declaring said
purported Amendment never to have been adopted as required by the
Constitution.

The Constitution makes it the sworn duty of the judges to uphold
the Constitution which strikes with nullity the 14th Amendment.
And, as Chief Justice Marshall pointed out for a unanimous Court in
Marbury v. Madison (1 Cranch 136 at 179):

"The framers of the constitution contemplated the instrument as a
rule for the government of courts, as well as of the legislature."


          *          *          *          *          *


"Why does a judge swear to discharge his duties agreeably to the
constitution of the United States, if that constitution forms no
rule for his government?"


          *          *          *          *          *


If such be the real state of things, that is worse than solemn
mockery.  To prescribe, or to take this oath, becomes equally a
crime."


          *          *          *          *          *


"Thus, the particular phraseology of the Constitution of the
United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to
be essential to all written constitutions  * * *  courts, as well as
other departments, are bound by that instrument."

The federal courts actually refuse to hear argument on the
invalidity of the 14th Amendment, even when the issue is presented
squarely by the pleadings and the evidence as above.

Only an aroused public sentiment in favor of preserving the
Constitution and our institutions and freedoms under constitutional
government, and the future security of our country, will break the
political barrier which now prevents judicial consideration of the
unconstitutionality of the 14th Amendment.



Bibliography and Footnotes:

 1. New Jersey Acts, March 27, 1868.
 2. Alabama House Journal 1866, pp. 210-213.
 3. Texas House Journal 1866, p. 577.
 4. Arkansas House Journal, 1866, p. 287.
 5. Georgia House Journal, November 9, 1866, pp. 66-67.
 6. Florida House Journal, 1866, p. 76.
 7. South Carolina House Journal, 1866, pp. 33 & 34.
 8. North Carolina Senate Journal, 1866-67, pp. 92 & 93.
 9. 14 Stat. 358 etc.
10. Senate Journal, 39th Congress, 1st Session, p. 563, and
    House Journal 1866, p. 889.
11. House Journal 1866, pp. 578-584 -- Senate Journal 1866, p. 471.
12. House Journal 1866, 9. 68 -- Senate Journal 1866, p. 72.
13. House Journal 1866, p. 76 -- Senate Journal 1866, p. 8.
14. House Journal 1866, pp. 210-213 -- Senate Journal 1866, p. 183.
15. House Journal 1866-67, p. 183 -- Senate Journal 1866-67, p. 138.
16. House Journal 1866, pp. 288-291 -- Senate Journal 1866, p. 262.
17. House Journal 1866, p. 284 -- Senate Journal 1866, p. 230.
18. House Journal 1867, p. 60 -- Senate Journal 1867, p. 62.
19. House Journal 1866-67, p. 108 -- Senate Journal 1866-67, p. 101.
20. McPherson, Reconstruction, p. 194;  Annual Encyclopedia, p. 452.
21. House Journal 1867, p. 223 -- Senate Journal 1867, p. 176.
22. House Journal 1867, p. 1141 -- Senate Journal 1867, p. 808.
23. McPherson, Reconstruction, p. 194.
24. House Journal 1868, pp. 44-50 -- Senate Journal 1868, pp. 22-38.
25. Minutes of the Assembly 1868, p. 743 -- Senate Journal 1868,
    p. 356.
26. House Journal, 39th Congress, 2nd Session, p. 563.
27. 13 Stat. p. 567.
28. 13 Stat. p. 774.
29. Presidential Proclamation No. 153 General Records of the United
    States, G.S.A. National Archives and Records Service.
30. 14 Stat. p. 814.
31. House Journal, 37th Congress, 1st Session, p. 123.
32. Senate Journal, 37th Congress, 1st Session, p. 91, etc.
33. 13 Stat. 763.
34. 14 Stat. p. 811.
35. 14 Stat. 814.
36. House Journal, 39th Congress, 2nd Session, p. 563, etc.
37. 40th Congress, 1st Session House Journal, p. 232, etc.
38. McPherson, Reconstruction, p. 53.
39. House Journal 1868, p. 15, Senate Journal 1868, p. 15.
40. House Journal 1868, p. 9, Senate Journal 1868, p. 8.
41. Senate Journal 1868, p. 21.
42. House Journal 1868, p. 50, Senate Journal 1868, p. 12.
43. Senate Journal, 40th Congress, 2nd Session, p. 725.
44. House Journal 1868, p. 50.
45. Vol. I, pp. 288-306;  Vol. II, pp. 1429-1448 -- "The Federal and
    State Constitutions," etc., compiled under Act of Congress on June
    30, 1906, Francis Newton Thorpe, Washington, Government Printing
    Office (1906).
46. Same, Thorpe, Vol. V, pp. 2799-2800.
47. Same, Thorpe, Vol. II, pp. 809-822.
48. Same, Thorpe, Vol. I, pp. 116-132.
49. Same, Thorpe, Vol. VI, pp. 3269-3281.
50. 14 Stat. p. 428, etc., 15 Stat. p. 14, etc.
51. 15 Stat. p. 706.
52. House Journal, 40th Congress, 2nd Session, p. 1126.
53. 15 Stat. p. 708.



                             #  #  #
      


Return to Table of Contents for

Fourteenth Amendment