U.S. Constitution, 14th Amendment
The Amendment That Never Existed
Historical Introduction To The U.S. Constitution 14th Amendment
The Flow of
flow of events started shortly after the ratification of the Thirteenth Amendment.
The Congress proposed the first Civil Rights Act
of 1866 (14 Stat. 27, Ch. 31)
and immediately the Congress feared that this Act
would be challenged and found unconstitutional, especially
when the US Supreme Court had recently ruled in
the Dred Scott v. Sanford,
(19 How. 404, 15 L.Ed. 691) case that the Constitution of the
United States does not allow a Negro the ability to obtain the status of citizen.
Before the ink was dry on this Act of
Congress; the Congress thought it best to amend
the Constitution for the United States so as to give
the Negro the status of citizenship but immediately ran
into more problems.
northern members of Congress had serious doubts
that they could trust any delegation from the southern States to vote on such a resolution so they refused to
allow them to be seated in Congress.
Furthermore, the Senate expelled
John P. Stockton of New Jersey from the
Senate Chambers for casting a negative vote on the
Joint Resolution which denied the U.S. Senate of the
required 2/3rd votes in adopting Resolutions to amend
the U.S. Constitution. [see New Jersey Joint Resolution No. 1
Paragraph 5} certified by Secretary of State of
New Jersey on March 27th, 1868].
With a recount, the U.S. Senate obtained the
required number of votes.
If this was not bad enough; the Congress seriously
doubted that the President would give his approbation
(and for fear of not being able to muster enough votes for an
over-ride of a Presidential Veto); the Congress did not
pass the resolution on to the President of the
United States as required by Article I, Section 7,
Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution.
Over the objection of the President of
the United States and the objections of
the southern States; the Congress submitted
the 14th Amendment to the States for
ratification which included the ten southern States.
Although there were some northern States
that rejected the 14th Amendment;
the southern States rejected the Amendment as
well. With the
non-ratification votes of the southern States;
the ratification of the 14th Amendment failed.
The members of Congress were furious!
With blind rage they placed the southern States under
military rule via the enactment of the Reconstruction Acts
of 1867-68 for the purpose of forcing each of those southern States
to ratify the 14th Amendment.
To accomplish their demands; the Congress
declared that they had authority to grant the Negro of the southern States the rights of suffrage
to cast votes and the political rights to hold
Public Offices of a southern State.
was a most interesting period of time in our history. Before the
ink was dry on the U.S. Secretary of State's Proclamation
declaring that the 14th Amendment to be (purportedly)
ratified; the Congress again had serious doubts that the 14th Amendment granted Congress any power to declare that the newly
created Negro citizen of the United States had political rights of suffrage
to cast votes.
The Congress immediately adopted a Resolution
to amend the Constitution for the United States
and that Amendment is now known as the 15th Amendment
to the United States Constitution. [Note: The
15th Amendment is not a grant of
"Political Rights" for Negroes to hold "Public Offices" of the
Reconstruction Acts were passed by the
U.S. Congress after the Civil War was proclaimed by
the President of the United States to be at an end. (Presidential Proclamation
No. 153 of April 2, 1866 and 14 Stat. 814).
The Reconstruction Acts that
will be addressed are those that were passed
on March 2, 1867 (14 Stat. 428 Ch. 153)
and on July 19, 1867 (15 Stat. 14 Ch. 30).
is obvious that these Reconstruction Acts were
enacted into law over the Veto of the
President for the purpose of expanding the authority
of Congress over the People and the States.
The following sections of the Reconstruction Acts
of 1867 admits that the purpose of those
Acts was to coerce the southern States into
rescinding their vote of rejection regarding the
ratification of the 14th Amendment:
Reconstruction Act of
March 2, 1867 (14 Stat. 428)
at Section 5 reads:
... and when said State, by a vote of its legislature elected
under said constitution (state), shall have adopted
the amendment to the Constitution of the United States,
proposed by the Thirty-Ninth Congress, and Known as
article fourteen, and when said article shall have
become a part of the Constitution of the United States, said State shall be declared entitled to representation
in Congress, ...
And the Act of
June 25, 1868 (15 Stat. 73, Chap. 70)
to admit the States of North Carolina, South Carolina,
Louisiana, Georgia, Alabama, and Florida,
to representation in Congress at Section 1 reads:
each of the States
of (naming them) shall be entitled and admitted to
representation in Congress as a State of the Union when
the legislature of such State shall have duly ratified the
amendment to the Constitution of the United States
proposed by the Thirty-ninth Congress, and known as the
And the Act of
March 30, 1870 (FORTY-FIRST
CONGRESS, Sess. II, Chap. 39) admitting the
State of Texas to Representation in the Congress
of the United States reads at the Preamble:
the people of Texas have framed and adopted a constitution
of State government which is republican; and whereas
the legislature of Texas elected under said constitution
has ratified the fourteenth and
fifteenth amendments to the Constitution of the
United States; and whereas the performance of these
several acts in good faith IS A CONDITION PRECEDENT TO
THE REPRESENTATION OF THE STATE IN CONGRESS:
Suffrage Of The Negro
the Reconstruction Acts of 1867;
the following mandates of Congress appears to be
unconstitutional as follows:
when the people of anyone of said rebel States shall have
formed a constitution of government in conformity with
the Constitution of the United States in all
respects, FRAMED BY A CONVENTION OF DELEGATES
elected by the male citizens of said State
twenty one years old and upward, OF
WHATEVER RACE, COLOR, or previous
paragraph appears in Section 5 of the Reconstruction Act
of March 2, 1867 and it declares that the electors
are to be the male citizens of said State of WHATEVER RACE or
the 14th and 15th Amendments to
the U.S. Constitution DID NOT EXIST
at the time the Reconstruction Act
of March 2, 1867 was enacted into law;
the Congress had no authority to issue a mandate that
authorized any person other than White Caucasian
Male Citizens to vote at an election.
Even if the 14th Amendment was
in effect at the time the Reconstruction Acts
went into effect; the 14th Amendment granted
no authority to Congress to grant any Negro
the Rights of Suffrage
to cast "Votes" or hold "Political Offices."
The indication of this fact appears
in President Andrew Johnsons Veto message
regarding the passage of the first Civil Rights Bill
known as 14 Stat. 27, Ch. 31.
This Veto message appears in THE CONGRESSIONAL
GLOBE of March 27, 1866
at S.p. 1679-81:
... If it be granted that Congress can
repeal all State laws discriminating between whites and
blacks in the subjects covered by this bill, why, it may be
asked, may not Congress repeal, in the same way, all
State laws discriminating between the two races on
the subjects of suffrage and office? If Congress can
declare by law who shall hold lands, who shall testify, who
shall have capacity to make a contract in a State, then
Congress can by law also declare who, without regard to
color or race, shall have the right to sit as a juror or as
a judge, to hold any office, and, finally, to vote,
'in every State and Territory of the United States.'
part of the Veto message caused considerable
debate among the Members of Congress. This
debate didn't cease with the Civil Rights Bill,
but was carried on during the debate on
the 39th Congress' Senate Resolution No. 30
and the 39th Congress' House Resolutions
No's. 48, 63, and 127
proposing the 14th Amendment to
the U.S. Constitution.
Congress felt that neither the Civil Rights Act
of 1866 nor any of the Resolutions
proposing the 14th Amendment granted
any Negro the Rights of Suffrage
within the boundaries of any State.
This fact is evident not only by the debates of
Representative Ashley (Congressional Globe,
December 10, 1867, H.p. 117-18)
and Senator Cragin (Congressional Globe,
January 27, 1868, S.p. 850-51) on the 14th
and 15th Amendments; but when
it was first raised in the debates on the Civil Rights Acts
of the THIRTY NINTH CONGRESS, Sess. I.
CH. 31 of April 9, 1866 (see 42 USC 1981-86):
WILSON, of Iowa. I
move to add the following as a new section:
AND IT BE
FURTHER ENACTED, That nothing in this act shall be so
construed as to affect the laws of any State concerning
the right of suffrage.
I wish to say one word.
That section will not change my construction of
the bill. I do not believe the term
'civil rights' includes the right of suffrage.
Some gentlemen seem to have some fear on
amendment was agreed to. [Emphasis added]
U.S. House debate
on Senate Bill No. 61
1st Session - March 2, 1866
this Civil Rights Act of Congress was
passed into law, the Congress had decided that
this Act would be challenged in
the U.S. Supreme Court and that the Court would
have struck it down as being unconstitutional.
To head off the problem, the Congress
began drafting the Resolutions proposing
the 14th Amendment:
ROGERS] Why, sir, the proposed amendment of
the Constitution [14th Amendment] which
has just been discussed in this House and postponed
till April next, was offered by the learned gentleman
from Ohio [Mr. Bingham] for the very purpose of avoiding
the difficulty which we are now meeting in the attempt to pass
this bill [Civil Rights Act of 1866]
now under consideration. Because the amendment which he
reported from the committee of fifteen was intended to
confer upon Congress the power to make laws which shall be
necessary and proper to secure to the citizens of each State all
the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States,
and to all persons in the several States equal protection in
the right of life, liberty, and property. There
is no protection or law provided for in that constitutional
amendment which Congress is authorized to pass by virtue of that
constitutional amendment that is not contained in this proposed
act of Congress which is now before us. Therefore
we have the opinion of the majority of' the committee
of fifteen, and the opinion of the learned gentleman
from Ohio, [Mr. Bingham,] THAT IN ORDER TO DO WHAT
THIS BILL PROPOSES, CONGRESS MUST BE EMPOWERED BY AN AMENDMENT TO
THE ORGANIC LAW.
affirm, without the fear of successful contradiction, that by the
decision of the highest court of the United States, that
august tribunal to whose decisions every honest and patriotic man
is bound to bow, it has been expressly and solemnly decided, after
the most mature deliberation, by a bench of the most enlightened
and learned lawyers that ever sat upon it, that negroes in this
country, whether free or slave, are not citizens or people of
the United States within the meaning of the words of the
constitution, and that therefore no law of Congress or of
any State can extend to the negro race, in the full
sense of the term, the STATUS of citizenship.
And the organic law, by its letter and spirit,
and in view of the contemporaneous circumstances under which it
was passed, fully vindicate the authority of this decision of the
Supreme Court, declaring that no power within any State, much
less in the Congress of the United States, can change
the STATUS of the negro.
That cannot be done until the requisite amendment is made
to the Constitution, until some such article has been carried
into effect by two thirds of both Houses of Congress and
three fourths of the States.
sir, no bill has been offered in this House or in the other,
the freedman's bill not exclude, which proposes to give
to Congress such dangerous powers over the liberties
of the people as this bill under consideration, and if
it can be constitutionally passed
by the Congress of the United States, and is no
infringement upon the reserved or undelegated powers of
the States, then Congress has the right,
not only to extend all the rights and privileges to
colored men that are enjoyed by white men, but has the
right to take away. If Congress
has the right to extend the great privileges of citizenship, which
heretofore have been controlled by the States, to any
class of beings, they have the right, by
the same authority to take away from any
class of people in any State the same rights that they
have the right to extend to another class of persons
in the same State. In
other words, if the Congress has power under our
present organic law to decide what rights and privileges
shall be extended to negroes, it has the same power and
authority under that organic law to extend its legislation so
as to take away the most inestimable and valuable rights of the
white men and the white women of this country, and not
only take away, but destroy every blessing of life, liberty,
and property, upon the principle that Congress has unlimited
sovereign power over the rights of the States; and
whenever, in its judgment, it may see fit, it may carry this
power on to an unlimited extent.
sir, is there any member on the either side of the House who, on
the honor of a man of conscience and integrity, can make
himself believe that this Congress has the right to control the
privileges and immunities of every citizen of these States,
as contemplated in the bill, without a change in the
organic law of the land?
House debate on Senate Bill No. 61
39th Congress, 1st Session - March 1, 1866
we can see from the above speech of US Representative Rogers;
the 14th Amendment
more than what was proposed in the Civil Rights Act
of 1866 and therefore the 14th Amendment
cannot and it does not run to the subject of Suffrage.
before the 14th Amendment to the
U.S. Constitution was purportedly to have been ratified by
three-fourths of the States on July 9, 1868; the
Congress submitted House Resolution No. 364
of the 40th Congress, 3rd Session (January 11, 1869)
proposing the 15th Amendment to
the U.S. Constitution.
This Amendment purports to grant the Negro the "Political Rights" of
"Suffrage" to cast "Votes" within any State and within the United States.
would be most interesting as to what Constitutional authority the
Congress of 1867-68 relied upon to grant the Negro of the southern States the Right to Vote
at any election pertaining to the ratification of the 14th
and 15th Amendments to
the U.S. Constitution?
Perhaps the present Congress could enlighten
the People of this Nation as to where this authority
came from, especially when the Congress of 1869 admitted to
the World that the U.S. Constitution needed to be
amended before the Negroes could have Civil Rights
and/or Rights of Suffrage as evidenced by the existence
of the 14th and 15th Amendments
to the U.S. Constitution.
several State Constitutional Conventions that
were organized under the Reconstruction Act
of March 2, 1867 did not conform to the provisions
of the United States Constitution.
As evidenced by 15 Stat. 731 Ch. 70;
the vote taken to hold
a Constitutional Convention within
the several southern States were adopted by a large
majority. What the Statute did not reveal is
that the majority votes of those States were of the COLORED RACE
of the population. This
fact is confirmed within the May 13, 1868 Senate Executive Document No. 53 of the 40th Congress, 2d Session
that was issued in compliance with the Resolution
of the Senate of December 5, 1867 by the
General of the Army, Ulysses S. Grant.
This Document consist
of 12 pages and it may be found in the CIS Serial Index
of 1867 as S. ex. doc. 53 (40-2) 1317.
Electors and the Members elected
to the several State Constitutional Conventions,
were made up of the COLORED RACE.
They did not have the lawful status of
a citizen of a State or of a citizen
of the United States nor did they have any
Political Rights of Suffrage under any law
of any State for want of an Amendment to the
United States Constitution.
Any Acts of Law coming from
those State Conventions or any Legislatures that were
convened under the Reconstruction Acts of 1867
are unconstitutional and must be declared so by
Unconstitutional State Legislatures
following paragraph, which appears at Section 2
of the Reconstruction Act of
July 19, 1867 (15
Stat. 14, Ch. 30), provides us with more
the commander of any district named in said act (14 Stat. 428, Ch. 158)
shall have power, ... to suspend or remove
from office, or from the performance of official duties and
the exercise of official powers, any officer or
person holding or exercising, or professing to hold or exercise,
any civil ... office or duty in such district under
any power, election, appointment
or authority derived from, or granted by,
or claimed under, any so-called State or the government
thereof, or any municipal or other division thereof, and upon such
suspension or removal such commander.
.. shall have power to provide from time
to time for the performance of the said duties of such officer or
person so suspended or removed, BY THE DETAIL OF SOME
COMPETENT OFFICER OR SOLDIER OF THE ARMY, OR BY THE APPOINTMENT OF
SOME OTHER PERSON, to perform the same, and to fill vacancies
occasioned by death, resignation, OR OTHERWISE.
State Constitutions that were adopted under
the Reconstruction Acts of 1867
provided that the members of the Legislatures of those
southern States may/shall consist of colored people
of whatever race and if the people of
those States refused to elect and seat those colored people
of whatever race into the Legislatures of
their States; the Military Commanders of those
Military Districts appointed the members
of those Legislatures under the (purported) authority of Section
2 of the
of July 19, 1867.
Whereas the 14th and 15th Amendments
to the U.S. Constitution WERE NOT IN EXISTENCE at
the time the newly elected/appointed Legislators were seated
within their respective States and whereas those Legislators
consisted of Colored People of Whatever Race;
the State Legislatures of the southern States
consisted of Members who had no lawful status
of being citizens of any State
or of the United States.
Any Acts (including
the Resolutions ratifying the 14th Amendment)
that were passed by the newly created
State Legislatures are unconstitutional. Said Resolutions of Ratification are without lawful force or
effect for they were adopted outside the authority of
the Constitution for the United States.
Governors of the southern States were removed from
Civil Office by Military Commanders
under the above cited Section 2 of the Reconstruction Act
of July 19, 1867 and were replaced with Army Officials
or other military appointees.
These Military Commanders or appointees declared
that they had the authority to reject or approve Resolutions
of the Legislatures of their "Military Districts" and they declared that they had the
authority to submit Resolutions of Ratification
to the U.S. Secretary of State declaring that
the Legislatures of their "Military Districts" had ratified the 14th and
15th Amendments to the
United States Constitution. [Note: "Military Districts"
are not "States" of the Union. "Military Districts" are
subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the U.S. Congress while a
State of the Union is a foreign corporation to the United States
that exercises sovereign authority of its own. The two forms
of government are different and they cannot co-exist.
The U.S. Congress, in and through its Military Districts, has
no authority to ratify Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.].
these Military Commanders and/or their appointees had no authority
under the Constitution of the United States to occupy
any Civil Office of a State; the Secretary of State
of the United States did not
have nor did he ever have any lawful Executive Transmittal
of Ratification of the 14th or
15th Amendments within his possession from any
southern State. The
14th and 15th Amendments to
the U.S. Constitution have never been ratified in
accordance to the provisions of the Constitution of the
United States and therefore they do not exist.
following paragraph appears at the Preamble of
the Reconstruction Acts of March 2, 1861
(14 Stat. 428 Ch. 153)
and of July 19, 1861 (15 Stat. 14 Ch. 30):
no legal State government or adequate protection for life
or property exists in the rebel States of Virginia,
North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Mississippi,
Alabama, Louisiana, Florida, Texas, and Arkansas; ...
Preamble openly declares that the Rebel States,
named therein, had no lawful State governments and as
such, they had no standing as a State
of the Union of the united States of America.
This paragraph openly admits that Congress had
unlawfully rescinded the status of Statehood
of those southern States for those States had lawful
governments at the time they were admitted into the Union and
at the time they ratified the U.S. Constitution,
13th Amendment. The U.S. Congress
reduced the southern States to being nothing more than States
of the incorporated District of Columbia that
are existing as a "Territory" or "Property"
of the United States under U.S. Const., IV:3:2.
must ask: "By what authority did the Congress of 1867 rely
upon to declare that the southern States had no valid
governments and that the civil governments that were in place
were operating as 'provisional Governments' subject to the
direct authority of Congress when those States were
previously brought into the Union of the united States
of America on 'equal footing' with the other States?"
This is a most interesting constitutional question
especially when Congress adopted the following
July 24, 1861 Resolution:
RESOLVED, That the present deplorable
civil war has been forced upon the country by the
disunionists of the southern States now in revolt against
the constitutional government and in arms around
the capital; that in this national emergency Congress,
banishing all feeling of mere passion or resentment,
will recollect only its duty to the whole country; that
this war is not prosecuted upon our part in any spirit of
oppression, nor for any purpose of conquest
or subjugation, nor purpose of OVERTHROWING or INTERFERING
with the RIGHTS or ESTABLISHED INSTITUTIONS
of those STATES, but to defend and maintain
the supremacy of the Constitution and all laws made in
pursuance thereof, and to preserve the Union, with all the
dignity, equality, and rights of the several States
unimpaired; that as soon as these objects are accomplished the
war ought to cease.
where the President of the United States had issued the
Insurrection was declared at an end and that
peace, order, tranquility, and civil authority now existed
in and throughout the whole of the United States
of the President dated August 20, 1866
The war then existing was not waged on the
part of the Government in any spirit of oppression,
nor for any purpose of conquest or subjugation, nor purpose
of overthrowing or interfering with the rights or established
institutions of the States, but to defend and maintain the
supremacy of the Constitution and to preserve
the Union with all the dignity, equality,
and rights of the several States unimpaired, and that
as soon as these as those objects should be accomplished this
war ought to cease.
of the President dated September 7, 1867
when the U.S. Supreme Court declared:
therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered
into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of
perpetual union, and all the guarantees of republican
government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act
which consummated her admission into the Union was something more
than a compact, it was the incorporation of a new member into
the political body.
And it was final.
between Texas and the other States was a complete,
as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the
original States. There
was no place for reconsideration, or revocation, except
through revolution, or through consent of the States.
as transactions under the Constitution, the ordinance
of secession, adopted by the convention and ratified by a
majority of the citizens of Texas, and all the acts of her
legislature intended to give effect to that ordinance, were
absolutely null. They
were utterly without operation in law.
The obligations of the State, as a member of
the Union, and of every citizen of the State, as a
citizen of the United States, remained perfect
and unimpaired. It certainly
follows that the State did not
cease to be
a State, nor her citizens to be citizens of the Union.
If this were otherwise, the State must
have become foreign, and her citizens foreigners. The war
must have ceased to be a war for the suppression
of rebellion, and must have become a war for conquest
therefore is, that Texas continued to be a State, and a State
of the Union, notwithstanding the transactions to which we
have referred. And
this conclusion, in our judgment, is not in conflict with
any act or declaration of any department of the
National government, but entirely in accordance with the
whole series of such acts and declarations since the first
out break of the rebellion.
of Texas, 7 Wall. 700, 19 L.Ed. 227
question also must be asked: "On what date did the
southern States cease to have legitimate governments?"
We know that the southern States had
legitimate governments at the time they were admitted into
the Union of States.
We also know that Congress recognized the
southern States as having legitimate governments before,
during, and after the Civil War (supra.).
And we know that the southern States had
legitimate governments at the time the Congress submitted the
U.S. Constitution, 13th Amendment to the
southern States and accepted their ratification votes.
Even though the Reconstruction Acts of 1868 does
not state the date that the southern States ceased to have
legitimate governments, the Reconstruction Acts
does state that the southern States had no legitimate
governments from the date of the enactment of
those Acts of Congress until those southern States
were admitted into Congress by an Act of Law
[see THIRTY-NINTH CONGRESS,
Session II, Chapter 153, Section 6].
By the word of Congress, there were no legitimate
ratification votes cast by any southern State during
the years of the Reconstruction Acts of 1866.
questions must also be asked: "Where does the
authority exist that authorizes the Congress of
the United States to declare that any 'State' of
the 'District of Columbia' ('Territory' of
other property of the United States) has authority to 'Ratify'
an Amendment to the United States Constitution?"
The word: State, as used in
the Reconstruction Acts of 1867, can
only be given the
definition of being a territory or possession
that is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States
under U.S. Const., IV:3:2:
. . any civil government which may exist therein shall be
deemed provisional only, AND IN
ALL RESPECTS subject to the PARAMOUNT AUTHORITY OF THE
UNITED STATES . ... [Emphasis added]
the fact that Congress found the need to submit the 13th, 14th,
and 15th Amendments to the
southern States for Ratification and found the need to
send its Military into those States to obtain
a Ratification Vote to its liking is an admission by
the Congress of 1867 that the southern States
were States of the Union of
the United States of America before, during,
and after the Civil War.
the time the President of the United States had declared
the Civil War to be at an end by the Proclamations
of June 13, 1865 [13 Stat. 763]; of
April 2, 1866 [14 Stat. 811]; and
of August 20, 1866 [14 Stat. 814]
and as those Proclamations were confirmed by Resolutions
of the Congress on July 22, 1861 (House Journal,
37th Congress, 1st Session, page 123, etc.)
and on July 25, 1961 (Senate Journal,
37th Congress, 1st Session, page 91, etc.);
the States of the Union were at Peace with
each other and were operating under
a Constitutional government.
It was those Constitutional governments of the
southern States that submitted to the
U.S. Secretary of State their Votes
of Rejection to the ratification of
the 14th Amendment.
As those governmental bodies were the only governments
of the southern States that were authorized under
the Constitution for the United States to execute
a Vote the ratification of the 14th Amendment;
their votes are the only valid and lawful votes that
could have been submitted to the
U.S. Secretary of State.
THE PRESENT DAY 14th Amendment
TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION WAS NEVER RATIFIED FOR IT
WAS REJECTED BY MORE THAN ONE FOURTH OF THE STATES THAT
WERE IN THE UNION.
THE 14th Amendment DOES NOT NOW, NOR
HAS IT EVER EXISTED.
the U.S. Congress has the authority to send
Military Troops into the freely associated
compact States of the united States of America to
obtain Votes of Ratification on
any Amendment to its liking; then why would there be a
need for Constitutional Amendment procedures.
For the Legislators of the States to allow the 14th
and 15th Amendments to
the U.S. Constitution to stand Ratified,
the Members of those Legislatures would be declaring to the World that
they represent a defacto government in
which the Congress of the United States has been
empowered to exercising absolute dictatorial powers
over the People and the States of the
united States of America.
Proclamation of Ratification
regard to the U.S. Constitution, 14th Amendment, there
appears to be no lawful Proclamation of Ratification on
record. The U.S.
Secretary of State, William H. Seward, had
reservations that the U.S. Constitution, 14th Amendment had met the qualifications of ratification (see Proclamation
of Ratification dated July 20th, 1868)
and he expressly stated that he did not issue the Proclamation
of Ratification of his free will. (see Proclamation of Ratification
dated July 28th 1868).
U.S. Secretary of State,
William H. Seward, made it clear within the Proclamation
of Ratification of July 28th 1868 that he
issued the Proclamation under an Order of
Congress. (see Concurrent Resolution dated
July 21st, 1868).
As the U.S. Secretary of State had not
issued the Proclamation of Ratification
of July 28th 1868 by his independent judgment under the
laws of the United States and as the U.S. Congress had not
amended the Act
of Congress of April 20th, 1818 to grant
the Congress authority to declare the ratification of
Constitutional Amendments, there are no lawful publications
of Proclamation of Ratification for the
U.S. Constitution, 14th Amendment.
Resolution of Congress ordering the U.S. Secretary
of State to issue a Proclamation of Ratification appears to
also fail Constitutional legitimacy as it was never submitted to
the U.S. President for his approbation as required by Article I,
Section 6, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution
nor does the U.S. Constitution authorize the
U.S. Congress to execute the laws of the United States.
several years, the Federal Judiciary took jurisdiction and made
ratification rulings of Constitutional Amendments.
Almost all of those cases were dismissed on the merits of
the case. Even
with the 1939 U.S. Supreme Court case of Coleman vs. Miller
(307 U.S. 433),
the Federal Courts took jurisdiction after a Constitutional Amendment was proclaimed to have been
ratified; that was until the question of ratification of
the U.S. Constitution, 14th Amendment
was brought before the Federal Courts.
U.S. Supreme Court case of Coleman
vs. Miller declares that from the time Congress adopts a
Joint Resolution to propose an Amendment to the
U.S. Constitution until the time the States have ratified the
Amendment, the question of ratification of Amendments were Political Questions
to the Courts. With
the Federal Court cases of Epperly vs. United States
(U.S. District Court
No. J90-010-CV; Federal Court
No. 91-35862; U.S. Supreme Court
challenging the ratification of the U.S. Constitution, 14th Amendment,
the Federal Courts enlarged the case of Coleman vs. Miller
to include Amendments that have been purportedly ratified by Proclamation of Ratifications.
the Federal Courts declaring that an Amendment to
the U.S. Constitution will no longer be determined by
the Courts to have been adopted in accordance to
the U.S. Constitution as required by the Act of Congress
of April 20th, 1818 and
by 1 USC 106b,
the people of the United States of America are now left
without recourse. EVERY BRANCH
OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAVE GONE ON RECORD DECLARING THAT THEY
HAVE NO JURISDICTIONAL AUTHORITY TO INVESTIGATE OR MAKE JUDGMENTS
INTO THE QUESTION OF THE RATIFICATION OF THE
U.S. CONSTITUTION, 14th Amendment.
What few Federal Courts that addressed the ratification
question went on record stating that as
the Federal Judiciary and the U.S. Congress
have used the U.S. Constitution, 14th Amendment
for so many years, the use of the (pretended) Amendment
validates the Amendment as being legitimate (an absurdity
rules of Constitutional construction are well known and were
approved by the framers of the Reconstruction Acts
of 1867-68. On January 25, 1872,
a unanimous Senate Judiciary Committee Report, signed by
the Senators who had voted for the Thirteenth,
Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments in Congress
construing the Constitution we are compelled to give it such
interpretation as will secure the result which was intended to be
accomplished by those who framed it and the people who
adopted it. The Constitution,
like a contract between private parties, must be read in the
light of the circumstances which surrounded those who made
it ... . If such
a power did not then exist under the Constitution of
the United States, it does not exist under this
provision of the Constitution, which has not been amended.
A construction which should give the phrase 'a republican
form of government' a meaning differing from the
sense in which it was understood and employed by the people when
they adopted the Constitution, would be as unconstitutional
as a departure from the plain and express language of
the Constitution in any other particular. This is
the rule of interpretation adopted by all commentators on
the Constitution, and in all judicial expositions of that
instrument; and your committee are satisfied of the entire
soundness of this principle.
A change in the popular use of any word employed in
the Constitution cannot retroact upon the Constitution,
either to enlarge or limit its provisions.
in order to determine whether recent construction of the Reconstruction Acts
are correct, it is necessary to read the debates in Congress
when these Amendments were being proposed.
Unfortunately, these debates are often inaccessible.
First, the CONGRESSIONAL GLOBE and RECORDS
in which these debates are found are now
a century old. Few libraries
have them, and the available sets will be progressively reduced by
wear and tear which inevitably comes with age.
Microfilm copies cannot be read by more than
one person at a time.
Secondly, relevant debate is scattered through a large
amount of irrelevant material.
pertinent to the Reconstruction Acts are found
from 1849 to 1875.
But during this era, Congress discussed many
other unrelated pieces of legislation.
Even when these Amendments
were directly under consideration, many irrelevant remarks of
a political or personal nature were made by members
of Congress. The GLOBE
index is not always a certain guide, since discussions
pertinent to the Amendments are found in debates on other topics,
while members of Congress often digressed in their
remarks on the Amendments themselves. Thus, persons
interested in analyzing the legislative history of the Reconstruction Acts
are forced to wade through an enormous quantity of extraneous
matter in order to cull out the pieces of pertinent debate.
The task is formidable.
Analysis of Committee Reports requires equally tedious
are grateful to the People of the State of Virginia that
spent the time, expense, and research
that must have taken to reproduce the
Congressional debates on the Reconstruction Acts.
The Congress, Session, Dates, and Pages of
the GLOBE, RECORD, or Committee Reports
from which the material is taken from are found on each page
of the THE RECONSTRUCTION
AMENDMENTS DEBATES as published by the Virginia Commission
on Constitutional Government in 1967.
The speaker is identified at the beginning of each
speech, or part that has been reproduced in
the Documents. No comment
or other textual material has been added to the debates
themselves as it was felt that the Documents should only
reproduce the relevant parts of the original debates.
The State of Virginia record of the Congressional
debates on the Reconstruction Acts and
the U.S. Constitution, 14th Amendment
may be located in a Depository Library of
your State or a bookstore on the Internet.
U.S. Supreme Court
the last 50 years, or so, the U.S. Supreme Court has
discovered numerous surprising new principles in our 200-year-old
Constitution. In almost every case, the amazing new
principle was said to reside in the 135 year-old 14th Amendment,
possibly in combination with some other Amendment.
Let's review a few examples.
Supreme Court has told us that the 14th Amendment,
in combination with the First Article of the
Bill of Rights, protects flag burning. Yet
our forefathers, who adopted the 14th Amendment,
punished public desecration of the American flag with death.
Court has told us that the 14th Amendment demands
gender equity in all State and local programs. But Section 2
of the 14th Amendment expressly permits,
even encourages, gender discrimination by the States in
U.S. Supreme Court claimed that the 14th Amendment
mandates forced busing to integrate public schools.
That would be a big surprise to the Congressmen who
framed the Amendment in 1866. They intended
quite the opposite and they said so on the record. Even
liberal law professors admit this fact. See,
for example, the Essay by Laurence Tribe
[See page 68
of the Essay by Tribe
in A Matter of Interpretation,
by Antonin Scalia].
The Thirty-Ninth Congress, which
drafted the 14th Amendment, also passed
legislation which retained racial segregation in
the Washington, D.C. Schools. When the
Senate voted to adopt the 14th Amendment, it
had separate black and white sections in
its visitors' gallery.
[An account of the 14th Amendment's
history relative to school segregation can be found in Berger, 1977,
Chapters 4 and 7].
U.S. Supreme Court claims that the 14th Amendment
forbids any meaningful State restrictions on abortion.
Yet, when the States ratified the Amendment, most
of them had anti-abortion laws on the books.
They passed or toughened many of those laws
in 1860's and 1870's, right around the same time when
the 14th Amendment was [purportedly] ratified.
Congress passed laws in 1865 and 1872 making
it a criminal offense to send abortion information through
the mail. So we are told that, at the time
Congress and the States were passing laws against abortion,
they amended the Constitution to nullify all
those laws. [See Mohr, 1978,
pages 195-225 to review the history of mid 19th Century
abortion laws. ].
with the adoption of the 14th Amendment, Congress
passed four enforcement laws, (in 1866,
1870, 1871, and 1875) as Section 5 of
the Amendment expressly authorized. The text
of those four laws, which ran in total to over
8000 words, was completely devoid of any language to support
claims that the 14th Amendment protected
flag burning or abortion, or demanded
public school integration or gender equity in State programs.
the numerous and obvious contradictions between the
historical record and the claims of our
judicial employees, one is entitled
to wonder: Are the
U.S. Supreme Court Justices making stuff up
out of whole cloth? Do We the People
have a major problem with employee fraud?
the thought, say liberal elites who would like us to believe that
the U.S. Constitution protects flag burning, abortion,
and all that other stuff. They offer two main
cover stories to explain away the contradictions.
first one goes something like this.
Yes indeed, no one
back then intended the 14th Amendment to protect flag
burning or abortion. No one intended it to
demand gender equity or public school integration.
But the framers were very wise. They knew
that we would need changes as time went on.
So they used sweeping, vague language,
guaranteeing things like due process.
They wanted to give the Supreme Court the tools
it needed to adapt the Constitution to the needs of
call this one the vague-on-purpose story.
other main cover story goes more or less as follows.
Prior to the
ratification of the 14th Amendment,
the Bill of Rights restricted only the
federal government. But the framers of the 14th Amendment
decided to change that. They wrote the Amendment
to incorporate the Bill of Rights
against the States, so that Federal Courts would
be able to force the States to honor our basic
call this one the incorporation cover story.
U.S. Supreme Court prefers a combination of the
two cover stories. The Court has long taken
the position that our forefathers intended the due process
clause of the 14th Amendment to incorporate
parts of the Bill of Rights against the States.
Exactly which parts it incorporates changes
from time to time. Whenever these
changes occur, the Court will let us know.
The authors of the Amendment also intended to give
the Court free rein to expand, without limit,
the meaning of the term due process.
review of the history of the 14th Amendment
reveals that both cover stories are false.
We'll take them one at a time.
THE VAGUE-ON-PURPOSE COVER STORY
are at least four reasons to reject the vague on purpose
cover story. The first reason involves the 14th Amendment
itself. Its Section 5 explicitly assigns enforcement
power to Congress, not
the Courts. Congress included Section 5 in
response to a catastrophic piece of recent
U.S. Supreme Court mischief. In 1857,
the Court had handed down the Dred Scott
decision, a decision that was motivated by judicial bias and
was grossly unjust, a decision that Abe Lincoln called a
perversion of the Constitution, and a decision that Lincoln's
contemporaries blamed for causing the Civil War. [Lincoln
is quoted by Senator Jenner during the
August 20, 1958 debates on the Jenner-Butler Bill.
See the 1958 Congressional Record -
Senate, page 18645]
the Civil War ended, Congress responded to the Court's brazen
power grab; it proposed the 14th Amendment.
The Amendment's first Section nullified the Dred Scott
decision; its last paragraph said,
Section 5. The
Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate
legislation, the provisions of this article.
language wasn't used in Constitutional Amendments until after the
Civil War. Congress then began including such language
to limit the Court's ability to pervert the Constitution.
The Court actually admitted that Section 5 was
intended to reserve enforcement power to Congress for a
decade or so after the 14th Amendment was passed.
In 1879, in Ex Parte Virginia,
the Supreme Court wrote:
It is not said (by the
14th Amendment, that) the judicial power
of the general government shall . . . be authorized
to declare void any action of a State in violation of (its) prohibitions.
It is the power of Congress which has been
enlarged. Congress is authorized to enforce the prohibitions
by appropriate legislation.
"Historical Review" (see his
Chapter 12) showed beyond doubt that the framers intended
the language in Section 5 to withhold enforcement power from
the Courts. [The quote from Ex Parte Virginia
can be found in Berger
on page 221. You can read the whole decision at
the 'Lectric Law
second reason is simple and obvious. The framers of
the 14th Amendment obviously knew the proper
way to adapt the Constitution to meet the needs of
changing times. They did it three times
within the space of five years, adopting the
Thirteenth Amendment in 1865, the Fourteenth
in 1868, and the Fifteenth in 1870.
They used the method that the Constitution
expressly provides us for that purpose.
third reason involves the legislation that Congress passed to
enforce the 14th Amendment.
That legislation (which ran in aggregate
to 8,149 words) was quite specific
and detailed. Over the years,
the U.S. Supreme Court found pretexts to nullify
most of it because the Justices found it distasteful.
Nevertheless, it is beyond dispute that the enforcement
legislation expressed the intent of our founders in framing and
ratifying the 14th Amendment.
The Congresses that passed the enforcement legislation
were contemporaneous with and dominated by the same political
party as the Congress that framed the 14th Amendment
and most of the State legislatures that
ratified it. [In nullifying
the 14th Amendment enforcement legislation, our
judicial employees caused African American citizens to suffer
almost a century of Ku Klux Klan terrorism
and Jim Crow laws in parts of the South.
fourth reason is the clincher. At the time the 14th Amendment
was drafted and ratified, distrust for the Supreme Court
was at an all-time high. According to
a Lincoln biographer, the Republicans (who sponsored
the 14th Amendment) viewed
Chief Justice Taney's death in 1864 as the removal
of a barrier to human progress.
In May, 1861, the New York Tribune
had written that Chief Justice Taney takes sides
with traitors . . . throwing about them
the sheltering protection of the ermine.
That same year, the New York Times
observed that Chief Justice Taney would go through
history as the judge who dragged his official robes in
the pollutions of treason. The Chicago Tribune
called the Supreme Court the last entrenchment
behind which Despotism is sheltered. [See Silver,
pages 223, 231, 232, and 239].
In December, 1866,
The Washington Chronicle wrote that treason had
found a refuge in the bosom of the Supreme Court of the
United States. In March, 1867, Harper's Weekly
accused the Court of trying to reverse the results
of the war. In April, 1867, the National Independent
wrote that the Supreme Court was regarded as a
diseased member of the body politic, and was at
risk of amputation. Much of this
criticism of the Court occurred while the 14th Amendment
was before the States for ratification.
Volume III, pages 170, 174, and 181.
The 14th Amendment was adopted
by Congress on June 13, 1866 and [purportedly] ratified
by a sufficient number of States on July 9, 1868].
of Congress, who framed the 14th Amendment,
were also disgusted with the Court.
They believed that it was usurping political power
and that one of its usurpations had caused
the Civil War. In January, 1864,
Senator John P. Hale of New Hampshire
made the following statement on the floor of the Senate:
will take this occasion to say that in my humble judgment if
there was a single, palpable, obvious duty that the
Republican party owed to themselves, owed to the country,
owed to humanity, owed to God when they came into power, it
was to drive a plowshare from turret to foundation stone of the
Supreme Court . . .
quote attributed to Senator Hale can be found in Silver,
page 139. The quote attributed to
Congressman Stevens can be found in a footnote on
page 222 of Berger, 1977.
The description of John A. Bingham as the leading
House moderate was on page 86 of Maltz.
The Bingham quote was taken from Warren,
Volume III, pages 170-171. Most of
the quote also appears in Boudin,
Vol. II, page 75].
1865, Congressman Thaddeus Stevens of Pennsylvania
expressed the opinion that recently deceased
Chief Justice Taney was damned . . .
to everlasting fire. Listen to excerpts from a speech
given in the House of Representatives
by John A. Bingham, of Ohio. Bingham has
been described by historians as the leading
House moderate on the Joint Committee
on Reconstruction (which drafted the 14th Amendment).
In January 1867, Bingham proposed sweeping away
at once the court's appellate jurisdiction in
all cases. He went on to say:
If, however, the
court usurps power to decide political questions and defy a free
people's will, it will only remain for a people thus
insulted and defied to demonstrate that the servant is not above
his lord, by procuring a further Constitutional Amendment
and ratifying the same, which will defy judicial
usurpation, by annihilating the usurper's (Amendment) in
the abolition of the tribunal itself.
pretty strong language for the leading
House moderate among the 14th Amendment's
framers. It underscores the degree of mistrust of the
Supreme Court held by those framers.
March 1868, for the only time in American history, Congress passed
a law (The Judiciary Act of 1868)
which diminished the scope of the Supreme Court's
appellate jurisdiction. A little later, in
Ex Parte McCardle,
the Court unanimously upheld the law. The justices
swallowed this bitter pill because the law had passed in the
Senate by a vote of 33-9 and in the House by 115-57.
Its sponsors probably had the votes to impeach and
remove as many Supreme Court Justices as they thought
necessary. [See Murphy, Walter F.,
page 27. See also Warren,
Vol. III, pages 195-210].
is obviously not the sort of climate in which Congress would adopt
an Amendment to give the Court a blank check to revise the
Constitution to meet the needs of changing times.
In the 1860's, Congress viewed an out-of-control
Judiciary as the problem, not the solution.
THE INCORPORATION COVER STORY
the 14th Amendment empowered Federal Courts to
enforce the Bill of Rights against the States,
this was one of the best kept secrets in
American history. There was no clue to this intent
in the four enforcement Acts that Congress passed contemporaneous
with the Amendment.
the Supreme Court itself was totally unaware of this sweeping
new power a scant nine months after the Amendment was ratified.
We select from a multitude of cases those which we deem to
be leading: Barron v. Baltimore,
7 Pet. 243; Fox v. Ohio,
5 How. 410, 434; Twitchell v. Commonwealth,
7 Wall. 321; Brown v. New Jersey, 175 U.S. 172, 174;
Twining v. New Jersey,
211 U.S. 78, 93.
the case of Twitchell v. Commonwealth (supra.),
Mr. Twitchell had been convicted of murder under a process
which his lawyer claimed violated
the Fifth and Sixth Amendments.
The Supreme Court (unanimously) disposed of
the case by citing the original understanding that the
Bill of Rights restricted only
the federal government, not the States.
Nobody mentioned the 14th Amendment in
that case. If the 14th Amendment
was intended to incorporate the
Bill of Rights against the States, you would think
that nine months after it was ratified somebody would have
known about this intent, either the Plaintiff's lawyer, or
one of the nine eminent Constitutional Lawyers on
the 1869 Supreme Court. [See Fairman,
"History of the Supreme Court of
the United States," Vol. VI,
Part I; "Reconstruction and Reunion"
at pages 212, 213].
law professor (named Stanley Morrison) reviewed
a dozen different cases between 1868 and 1947 in which
various defense lawyers asserted that the Bill of Rights
should restrict the States as well as the
federal government. In the first few cases,
the 14th Amendment wasn't even mentioned.
It wasn't until 1887, nineteen years after
the Amendment was added to the Constitution, that a
resourceful lawyer decided to try the incorporation
story line. [See Morrison,
"The Fourteenth Amendment and
the Bill of Rights;" "The Incorporation Theory"
at pages 229, 230].
Court rejected this argument unanimously until 1892,
twenty-four years after the Amendment was debated,
passed, and ratified. At that point, a few dissenters
began to sign on to the fraud. A few years later, the
Court decided to incorporate the takings
Clause of the Fifth Amendment in order to develop a scam for
use in protecting corporations from regulation by
the States. [
See, for example, Levy (1986)
page 167. See also the Essay by Professor Lino Graglia
(pages 86-101) in Licht et. al.
1876, Congress debated, and almost passed, a Resolution to
recommend to the States a proposed
Constitutional Amendment to impose the
First Amendment's religious freedom mandates on
the States as well as the federal government. The so
called Blaine Amendment said:
No State shall make
any laws respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting
the free exercise thereof; and no money raised by taxation in any
State for the support of public schools, or derived from any
public fund therefore, nor any public lands devoted thereto, shall
ever be under the control of any religious sect, nor shall any
money so raised or lands so devoted be divided between religious
sects or denominations.
of the folks who voted to adopt or ratify the 14th Amendment
were (still) in Congress when it debated the Blaine Amendment.
They surely remembered what they had done,
and intended, a scant eight years earlier. They would
not have bothered with a new Amendment to redo what they had
already accomplished with the 14th Amendment.
a colleague of Professor Morrison,
performed an exhaustive review of historical material which might
illuminate the intent of the framers of the 14th Amendment
with respect to the incorporation claim.
He studied the debates in Congress, speeches
by Congressmen campaigning for reelection in 1866,
proceedings in the various State legislatures which ratified
the Amendment, and relevant articles in the major newspapers
of the time. Then he wrote a lengthy article reporting
what he found. [Fairman's Article
is on pages 85-219 of Fairman and Morison's
The Fourteenth Amendment and the
Bill of Rights: The Incorporation Theory.
A political scientist named Horace E. Flack
published a book in 1908 (Republished by
Peter Smith, Gloucester, Mass., 1965) in which
he presented all the evidence he could find to support the incorporation theory.
The evidence was a bit scanty. And the few
scraps there were only supported the claim that Congress intended
Section 5 to empower itself to bring the States under
the Bill of Rights, using the privileges and immunities
language, should it choose to do so.
Horace E. Flack
found no evidence whatever which indicated that Congress
intended the 14th Amendment's due process clause
to empower the Supreme Court to usurp power
to decide political questions.].
summarizing, Professor Fairman
wrote that he found a mountain of evidence
debunking the incorporation story line and only a few stones and pebbles
to support it. That probably explains why it took
the Supreme Court a generation to learn about the story.
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
In recent years, the U.S. Supreme Court has
claimed authority to interpret the U.S. Constitution and
declare that the First Article of the
Bill of Rights no longer is limited to the establishment
of a State created Church such as the Church of England,
but is now defined to be a Doctrine of
Separation of Church and State and has the
authority to apply that Doctrine upon the States of
the Union through the U.S. Constitution, 14th Amendment.
If this authority exist, then there are a few
questions to be asked:
If the Federal Courts have the authority to interpret the
Federal Constitution in declaring that the
First Amendment's original purpose and intent was not to
create a National Church, such as the
Church of England, but to establish a Doctrine that
there was to be a Separation of Church and State and
then applying that Doctrine to the States under the purported
authority of the U.S. Constitution, 14th Amendment, why
then is that Doctrine being applied only to
the Christian faith?
Why is the Doctrine of Separation
of Church and State never applied to
the State and Federal Governments? Does not the
Federal Government enter into "Treaties"
with the Catholic Church? Does not the
State Governments create "Church Corporations"
to which every Church Denomination has been incorporated
thereunder? And does not the State and
Federal Governments regulate the "Church"
through their Revenue and
Tax Codes under their purported corporate
authority? [see exemption from
federal income tax under Section 501(a) of the Internal Revenue Code
of 1986 by being listed as an exempt organization under Section 501(c)
of the Code (26 U.S.C. Section 501 (c))].
In regard to the recent rulings of the Federal Courts
removing "Symbols" of Christian faith
from Public Schools and other Public Facilities (such as
State and Federal Courtrooms and Government Memorials),
are not these "Symbols" the symbols of
government created corporations known as "Church Corporations?"
If this is so, must we ask by what authority do the
Federal Courts rely upon to apply the Doctrine
of separation of Church and State to
such Symbols when those Symbols represent
With the recent ruling of the
U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit,
mandating that the City of San Diego must remove
a Christian Cross from a War Memorial, will
not the Federal Courts go so far as to mandate that all
references of "God" and Christian Crosses be
removed from all City, County, and the Arlington National Memorial
If there is a Doctrine of Separation of
Church and State as declared by the
United States Supreme Court, how come the States
and the Federal Government will not recognize
the Churches as having sovereign powers and immunities to
govern themselves as a sovereign Nation?
If there is a Doctrine of Separation of
Church and State, we must ask as to what
authority the Congress or the President is relying upon to
enter into a "faith base"
relationship with Church denominations?
U.S. Constitution, 14th Amendment is being applied
by the U.S. Congress and the Federal Courts as a tool of
war upon the States and their citizens. Even the
Negro population has been made a victim of the 14th Amendment
in that they were forcefully taken from their homeland and made
citizens of the United States by birth and not the choice of
authors of the U.S. Constitution, 14th Amendment
had calculating motives in that the underlying purpose of the
Amendment was to transfer the reserved Powers of the States
and the People to the Federal Government. It allowed
the Federal Government to create "Corporations"
for the purpose of distributing fiat paper money in "discharge"
of debts instead of providing lawful currency in the form of
silver and gold coins in "payment" of debts
(see "Payment" vs. "Discharge" in
the case of Stanek v. White,
172 Minn. 390, 215 H.W. 784). In
other words, the U.S. Congress granted an elite group of
people the "Title of Nobility" to
control the money supply of our country, the United States of America, and thus they control
the politics and policies of our government.
not here to pass judgment on the U.S. Constitution,
14th Amendment, but if it is the will of the people to turn
the Constitution of the United States upon its head via
an Amendment, so be it! But only if it is done in a
The U.S. Constitution,
14th Amendment was not ratified in accordance to
the provisions of the Constitution for the United States
of America and as such, it does not exist. It
survives as a matter of fraud and deception.
done my best to have the question of the ratification of the
U.S. Constitution, 14th Amendment answered by
the Judges of our Federal Courts or by Members of
the U.S. Congress, but to no avail. On this
web site, you will see my collection of Court Cases,
Letters, Articles, and other Documents that show the
U.S. Constitution, 14th Amendment has no
lawful existence. What has to be done next will be a
question you will have to decide.
like to thank D.J. Connolly for his contribution to
February 04, 2012