Posted by Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S. on September 26, 1998 at 20:11:24:
In Reply to: Re: E.O. 14th posted by New Kid on September 26, 1998 at 12:30:28:
: : Executive Order Title List (14th Amendment).
: : “6: July 20* . Ratification of the 14th Amendment certified as valid, provided the consent of Ohio and New Jersey be deemed as remaining in force despite subsequent withdrawal. *Signed by William H. Seward, Secretary of State. Has form of a proclamatiom.”
: : “7: July 28* . 14th Amendment certified as in effect and ordered published. *Signed by William H. Seward, Secretary of State.” Presidential Executive Orders, pp. 1-2, Vol. I, Publ. Books, Inc. (1944).
: Excerpts from Paul's U.S. v Knudson:
: " Congress passed the Reconstruction Act, which provided for the military occupation of 10 of the 11 southern states. It excluded Tennessee from military occupation, and one must suspect it was because Tennessee had ratified the Fourteenth Amendment on July 7, 1866."
: "By spurious, nonrepresentative governments seven of the southern states which had theretofore rejected the proposed amendment under the duress of military occupation and of being denied representation in Congress did attempt to ratify the proposed Fourteenth Amendment."
: Consequently, we have Thaddeus Stevens' statement:
: "The belligerent character of the Southern States was recognized by the United States.... The Southerners should be treated as a conquered alien enemy, the property of their leaders seized and appropriated to the payment of the national debt. This can be done without violence to the established principles only on the theory that the southern States were severed from the Union and were an independent government de facto, and an alien enemy to be dealt with according to the laws of war. Absurd to think of trying the leaders for treason. That would be acting under the Constitution....
: "No reform can be effected in the Southern States if they have never left the Union.... But by treating them as an outside, conquered people, they can be refused admission to the Union unless they voluntarily do what we demand."
: The Lieber Code
: Washington, D.C., April 24, 1863
: Instructions for the Government of Armies of the United States in the Field by Order of the Secretary of War:
: Article III
: Martial Law in a hostile country consists in the suspension, by the occupying military authority, of the criminal and civil law, and of the domestic administration and government in the occupied place or territory, and in the substitution of military rule and force for the same, as well as in the dictation of general laws, as far as military necessity requires this suspension, substitution, or dictation.The commander of the forces may proclaim that the administration of all civil and penal law shall continue either wholly or in part, as in times of peace, unless otherwise ordered by the military authority.
: United States Army Field Manual 27-10 Chapter 6 Occupation:
: 368. Nature of Government
: It is immaterial whether the government over an enemy's territory consists in a military or civil or mixed administration.
: Its character is the same and the source of its authority the same.
: It is a government imposed by force, and the legality of its acts is determined by the law of war.
: 371. Nature of Laws Suspended or Repealed
: The occupant may alter, repeal, or suspend laws of the following types:
: a. Legislation constituting a threat to its security, such as laws relating to recruitment and the bearing of arms.
: b. Legislation dealing with political process, such as laws regarding the rights of suffage and of assembly.
: c. Legislation the enforcement of which would be inconsistent with the duties of the occupant, such as laws establishing racial discrimination.
The case fails when you recognize that those
same southern states were counted upon to
ratify the Anti-Slavery Amendment. Without
their votes, as de jure members of the Union,
that proposal would never have been ratified.
Then, by some pathological rationalization,
those same southern states were, quite
arbitrarily, then treated as if they were
no longer de jure members of the Union,
at the mere him of Congress -- no, at the
mere whim of mad dog Thaddeus Stevens
and his carpetbagger cronies.
Congress needed those southern states as much
to ratify the Anti-Slavery Amendment, as it
also needed them to ratify its precious
14th amendment proposal.
Well, they attempted to secede and failed.
Their failure to secede meant that they
were still in the Union, eligible to
ratify a proposed amendment. They never
again attempted to secede.
Therefore, the conclusion is inescapable
that they could not lawfully be treated as
alien enemies; they were, as a matter of Law,
still members of the Union in good standing,
with all Rights historically reserved to them
by the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.
See the Equal Footing Doctrine, still in force.
The Anti-Slavery Amendment and its ratification
destroy the notion that re-invading the south
had any justitication in Law; on the contrary,
the Guarantee Clause binds the federal government
to protect those same states from invasion, then
That is the unavoidable significance of
Dyett v. Turner.
Trying to extend the Reconstruction Acts
to states of the Union OTHER THAN the 10
mentioned, is even more ludicrous.
A lot of you people who post here, appear to
be overly obsessed with the Civil War. It
ended more than 130 years ago. We have had
many other wars in the intervening years,
including a nuclear war.
I think it is time you recognized that you
are beating on a dead horse.
And you can drag your dead horse to water, but ....
Dyett v. Turner. Dyett v. Turner!
under constitution authority of the
Full Faith and Credit Clause!
27 < 28, remember :)
I rest my case.
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Counselor at Law, Federal Witness,
and Private Attorney General
Post a Followup