I tried to find within the Internal Revenue Code the section which created THAT agency, the Internal Revenue Service, but I was unable to find it. I then decided to locate other sources of information regarding how the Internal Revenue Service was established and what I found was nothing short of amazing. In 1972, an Internal Revenue Manual 1100 was published in both the Federal Register and Cumulative Bulletin; see 37 Fed Reg. 20960, 1972-2 Cum. Bul. 836. On the very first page of this statement published in the bulletin, the following admission was made. ” (3) By common parlance {sic} and understanding of the time, an office of the importance of the Office of Commissioner of Internal Revenue was a bureau. The Secretary of the Treasury in his report at the close of the calendar year 1862 stated that “The Bureau of Internal Revenue has been organized under the Act of the last session…” The below video will show that the BATF is in the same category as the IRS, a non Congressionally created agency.
Also it can be seen that Congress had intended to establish a Bureau of Internal Revenue, or thought they had, from the Act of march 13, 1863, in which provision was made for the President to appoint with Senate confirmation a Deputy Commissioner of Internal Revenue ” who shall be charged with such duties in the bureau of internal revenue as may be prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury, or as may be required by law, and who shall act as Commissioner of Internal Revenue in the absense of that officer, and excercise the privilege of franking all letters and documents pertaining to the office of internal revenue. In other words the office of internal revenue was the bureau of internal revenue, and the act of July 1, 1862 is the organic act of todays Internal Revenue Service. This statement, which again appears in a similar publication appearing at 39 Fed. Reg. 11572, 1974-1 Cum. Bul 440, as well as the current IRM 1100, essentially admits the Congress never created either the Bureau of Internal Revenue or the Internal Revenue Service. To conclude that “Congress thought it had created this agency” is an addmission that even the government itself cannot even find anything which created either agency. Onlyan Officer (the Commissioner) was actually created by the act of July 1. 1862;
neither the Bureau nor the Service was actually created by any of these acts. I have no doubt that when employees of the IRS were researching its origins so that this statement could be included within IRM 1100, those employees must have performed a very thorough investigation. This obviously is the best position that the IRS agency can develop regarding precisely how the IRS came into being. But besides the problem that these acts simply did not create either the Bureau or the IRS is the fact that these acts were repealed by the adoption of the Revised Statutes of 1873. Therefore, it would appear that, THAT agency has never been created by any act of Congress, and this is a serious flaw. At the state level, it is a well acknowledged rule that a duly constituted office of state government must be created either by the state constitution itself or by some legislative act;
see Patton v. Bd. of Health, 127 Cal. 388, 393, 59 P. 702, 704 (1899)( “One of the requisites is that the office of state government must be created either by the state constitution itself or it must be authorized by some statute.” (it is a well know legal fact that statute refers to contractual agreements).; First Nat. Bank of Columbus v. State, 80 Neb. 597, 114 N. W. 772, 773, (1908); State ex rel. Peyton v. Cunningham, 39 Mont. 197, 103, P. 497, 498, 1909; State ex rel. Stage v. Mackie, 82 Conn 398, 74 A. 759, 761 (1909); State ex rel. Key v. Bond, 94 W. Va. 255, 118 S.E. 276, 279, (1923) ( “a position is a public office when it is created by law”); Coyne v. State, 22 Ohio App. 462, 153 N.E. 876, 877, (1926)( “Unless the office existed there could be no other officer either de facto or de jure. A de facto officer is one invested with an office; but if there is no office with which to invest one, there can be no officer. An office may exist only by duly constitutional law”); State v. Quinn, 35 N.M. 62, 290 P. 786, 787 (1930); Turner v. State, 226 Ala. 269, 146, So. 601, 602, (1933); Oklahoma City v. Century Indemnity Co., 178 Okl. 212, 62, P.2d 94, 97 (1936); State ex rel. Nagle v. Kelsey, 102 Mont. 8, 55 P. 2d 685, 689 (1936); Stapleton v. Frohmiller, 53 Ariz. 11, 85 P. 2d 49, 51 (1938); Buchholtz v Hill, 178 Md. 280, 13 A. 2d 348, 350 (1940); Krawiec v. Industrial Commission, 372 Ill. 560, 25, N.E. 2d 27, 29 (1940); People v. Rapsey, 16 Cal. 2d 636, 107 P. 2d 388, 391, (1940); Industrial Commission v. Arizona State Highway Commission, Ariz. 59, 145 P. 846, 849 (1943); State ex rel. Brown v. Blew, 20 Wah 2d 47, 145 P. 2d 554, 556 (1944); Martin v. Smith, 239 Wis. 314, 1 N.W. 2d 163, 172 (1941); Taylor v. Commonwealth, 305 Ky. 75, 202, S.W. 2d 992, 992 ( 1947).; State ex rel. Hamblen v. Yelle, 29 Wash. 2d 68, 185 P. 2d 723, 728 (1947); Morris v. Peters, 203 Ga. 350, 46 S.E. 2d 729, 733 (1948). Weaver v. North Bergen Tp., 10 N.J. Super. 96, 76 A. 2d 701 (1950); Tomaris v. State, 71 Ariz. 147, 224 P. 209, 211 (1950); Pollack v. Montoya, 55 N.M. 390, 234 P. 2d 336, 338 (1951); Schafer v. Superior Court in & for Santa Barbara County, 248 P. 2d 450, 453 (Cal. App. 1952); Brusnigham v. State, 86 Ga App. 340, 71 S.E. 2d 698, 703 (1952); State ex rel. Mathews v. Murray, 258 P. 2d 982, 984 (Nev. 1953); Dosker v. Andrus, 342 Mich. 548, 70 N.W. 2d 765, 767 (1955); Hetrich v. County Comm. of Anne Arundel County, 222 Md. 304, 159 A. 2d 642, 643 (1960); Meiland v. Cody, 359 Mich. 78, 101 N. W. 2d 336, 341 (1960); Jones v. Mills, 216 Ga. 616. 118, S.E. 2d 484, 485 (1961); State v. Hord, 264 N.C. 149, 141, S.E. 2d 241, 245 (1965); Planning Bd. of Tp. of West Milford v. Tp.Council of Tp. of West Milford, 123 N.J. Super. 135, 301 A. 2d 781, 784 (1973); Vander Linden v. Crews, 205 N.W. 2d. 686, 688 (Iowa 1973); Kirk v. Flournoy, 36 Cal. App. 3d 553, 111 Cal Rptr. 674, 675 (1974); Wargo v. Industrial Comm., 58 Ill. 2d 234, 317 N.E. 2d 519, 521 (1974); State v. Bailey, 220 S.E. 2d 432, 435 (W. Va. 1975); Leek v. Theis, 217 Kan. 784, 539 P. 2d 304, 323 (1975); Midwest Television, Inc v. Champaigne-UrbanaCommunications, Inc., 37 Ill. App. 3d 926, 347 N.E. 2d 34, 38 (1976); and state v. Pinckney, 276 N.W. 2d 433, 436 (Iowa 1979); This same rule applies at the federal level; see United States v. Germaine, 99 U.S. 508 (1879); Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425, 441, 6 S. Ct. 1121 (1886)(“there can be no officer, either de jure or de facto, if there be no office to fill”); United States v. Mouat, 124 U.S. 303, 8 S. Ct. 505 (1888); United States v. Smith, 124 U.S. 525, 8 S. Ct. 595 (1888); Glavey v. United States, 182 U.S. 595, 607, 21 S. Ct. 891 (1901)(” the lawcreates the office, prescribes its duties”); Cochnower v. United States, 248 U.S. 405, 407, 39 S. Ct. 137 (1919)(“Primarily we may say that the creation of offices and the assignment of their compensation is a legislative function… And we think the delegation of such function and the extent of its delegation must have clear expression or implication”); Burnap v. United States, 252 U.S. 512, 516, 40 S. Ct. 374, 376 (1920); Metcalf & Eddy v. Mitchell, 269 U.S. 514, 46 S. Ct. 172, 173 (1926); N.L.R.B. v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co. of Louisville, 350 U.S. 264, 269, 76 S. Ct. 383 (1956)(“Officers normally means those who hold defined offices. It does not mean the boys in the back room or other agencies of invisible government, whether in politics or trade-union movement”); Crowley v. Southern Ry.Co., 139 F. 851, 853 (5th Cir. 1905); Adams v. Murphy, 165 F. 304 (8th Cir. 1908); Scully v. United States, 193 F. 185, 187 (D. Nev. 1910)(” There can be no offices of the United States, strictly speaking, except those which are created by the Constitution itself, or by an act of Congress”); Commissioner v. Harlan, 80 F.2d 660, 662 (9th Cir. 1935); Varden v Ridings, 20 F. Supp. 495 (E.D. Ky. 1937); Annoni v Blas Nadal’s Heir’s, 94 F. 2d 513, 515 (1st Cir. 1938); and Pope v. Commissioner, 138 F. 2d 1006, 1009 (6th Cir. 1943).
Since I have reached the conclusion that the IRS has never been created by Congress, I am asking ANY GOVERNMENT STOOGE to provide to me the citation of any lawful legislative act which really did create the IRS. Or admit the IRS is a private corporation in which all revenue collection is based on W-4, 1099 or other contractual agreements.
Wednesday, June 22, 2011
Saturday, March 5, 2011
Do you know your legal status
Are you ready to try me out Mr, Five 0 ? You won't be the first Admiralty Maritime Law anti Constitutional Common Law - Law dog I've defeated in or outside the courts.
It appears that this ” socialist ” and very anti Constitutional, contractual legal system being used in this u.s. corporate federal empire is fascist, and I prove it . The majority in this country believes everyone should pay the tax, get a drivers license, etc.etc. When in fact the truth by legal definition proves other wise, yet to bring this subject up causes the contracted individual status majority members in our society to attack, vilify, demonize, imprison, even slaughter, yes I've had friends killed by the police state, jailed, railroaded, those of us using another legal status protected by the Supreme Court. So are left and right wing Socialists Fascists, in the ” free ” country.. Read my blogs and decide for yourself.
The most significant identity an individual can have is his status in the world of law. From his position and standing in relation to the state flow's his entire capacity to do, create, and exist at his highest level. In the United States, a citizen has rights which are constitutionally guaranteed, not to be restricted by government.
But there are natural rights and there are rights created by government, the difference being manifested in the status of the person in question. The natural rights, or rights at common law, are those belonging to natural persons -- those people are citizens in the United States and who possess the power of political action. These inalienable rights of men, as the Declaration of Independence calls them, are absolute in our governmental system, not to be infringed or abridged by any office or process of government powers. Only Natural persons or mortal man has political rights. These "institutory" powers are where we shall focus; the created rights held by subjects of franchise, or other privileges granted by the state, are of another nature and not in the same class with the rights of men. ( Either you are an Organic Free Sovereign Individual, or you are a corporate owned strawman subject, a state owned slave).
All law in America is based on the status of the individual. All legislation, judicial actions, and administrative policy is based on status, for there are different classes of citizens and subjects. ( For example, under the 14th Red Communist Amendment, "equal protection" is applied to corporate "persons" as citizens even though strictly speaking they are simply subjects.) Though a law be termed general and not special, it must be decided by the court as to whom it will apply. The application of laws, or statutes ( as they really are expressions of law) is basically unknown as to the fullest extent of their range. Only in individual cases can it truly be determined according to the facts surrounding the respective case.
Therefore, the status of the party must be determined before the Court should proceed and before the Court can make an intelligent decision. How can status be determined if it is not pleaded? How can it be pleaded except by statements of fact, and of the constitutional application and intent of the particular statute in the case? The way to determining law is to plead all the facts in a case in such a way as to show the status of the parties, and therefore, the rightful scope of the statute. ( I can tell you those magistrates really love it when this happens to them, they''ll recess, clear the court room, before allowing you to proceed, they don't want their dumbed down flock to hear about this status stuff.)
Where fundamental rights are in question, there shall be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them. (Miranda vs. Arizona) Among the most important rights the people hold are protected by the Bill of Rights, but these are only a scant few of all the capacities, abilities and potentials of any human being. The Bill of Rights was only a statement, brief and definite, that the Founders considered the Constitution to be a strictly expressed grant of political power by the people to a governmental structure designed to protect their rights first and foremost, and never, under any pretense, to violate any right held by the people.
Perhaps the right of greatest importance, of greatest value to the free sovereign citizen of these United States in his association with his fellow man, and his government, is the absolute ownership of property, personal property and real property. From this absolute dominion, said Thomas Jefferson, flows all free society, and without it, of course, comes dictatorship and oppression. If the owner of the property shall not have unconditional control and use of it -- who shall ? If the owner shall not reap the profits of the use of property, who shall ? Who shall have the fruits of labor ? Should it be the man whose right it is to labor ? Who, but a Sovereign free citizen, can claim this right?
America was founded on this principle; that no taking of property could occur without just compensation. That is, if government should proceed to demand from the citizen some of his wealth, it shall be only in return for a just service, duly warranted, that was rendered him by government. ( Unless of course you have have been tricked into corporate serf status then they can rob you blind and provide nothing in return, sound familiar ?).
As the constitutional protection of rights is a joint effort between the citizen and his government, this protection is a voluntary one, arising from the consent of the individual, and he must pay for his own government, to whatever extent it serves him. Whereas a corporation holds its wealth in franchise, or at the grace of government, it can therefore be taxed on the holding or profits of that property. However, a natural person has an inalienable right to acquire and possess all the subjects of property, land, goods, etc.. (Article I Section I Idaho Constitution) and not be hindered nor have his rights regulated by his government. A tax on an act is regulation of that act. ( Get the Sovereign free Citizen to obtain a license, thus lowering his legal status to a corporation, thus giving government the authority to help themselves to their fair share for doing nothing).
A tax which is based on the supposed value of a property specie, is a tax on the holding of the property. While taxation to pay for constitutional government is a demand on the possessions of a citizen, the just tax can only be for the services rendered to that citizen according to his particular status in law. To put it in general terms, the natural person has the least taxation upon him, while the corporation must bear the most. " For the natural person owes nothing to the state except for the protection he receives therefrom." (Hale v. Henkel) As rights of property are natural rights, the Natural Person does not owe his government the returns or benefits of his possessions; the corporation does. ( Would you like to become a licensed corporate strawman subject to the states whims?).
Contingent to the right to possess is the right to acquire. Acquiring property in a thing is often done with lawful money; a medium of exchange for all transactions. Without money, men would be severely hampered in their right to acquire. Fundamental rights of property, therefore, include the right to have and use a lawful medium of exchange. But what if the medium has no purchasing power? What if it will not pay debts? How can a man buy when he cannot pay the debt in the transaction? The basic question in property rights is Quid pro quo, or something for something. This is the basic principle of all transactions of the market place, or between private parties. If a man give nothing and receive something, he has robbed his neighbor, and still owes him.
Let me see here now, the government created millions of strawmen corporations, pillaged their income, and hawked their resources, and hawked all private property as well, to those whom they borrow from, and claims WE ALL are in debt to the tune of trillions..And we seem to be losing more of those created privileges quite often. In fact it would appear that dogs have more rights than citizen corporate serfs in this country today. How odd.. Seems someone has made a bad contractual arrangement for themselves.
Money must convey property in something, else it is only a mutual debt. Debt is not a satisfactory proposition to everyone, so debt cannot be a medium of exchange. Article I, Section 10, of the Constitution states; " No state shall make any Thing but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debt. ( Roger Sherman's addition). The founders intended this to be the end of the question of money; gold and silver coin. At the state level, taxation is for duly constituted government, process in the courts, and all other legal transactions of the government. The protection of property rights are also secured in the states, by guaranteeing that no state can enforce collection of taxes or any discharge of debt in anything but gold or silver coin; that is, payment with specie which transfers legal title to property. This clause binds the states down. They are bound to operate at the Common law.
History is rife with examples of the subterfuge and resulting oppression and slavery from paper "money". The Founding Fathers wished, once and for all, to bar the door against this oft repeated debauchery of the peoples wealth. The knew that no surer way to destroy a nation and the quality of life for all its people exists than the insidious horror of paper money, for it drives out the gold, and gives the power of government into the hands of the few. (George Bancroft). Such, though, has been the situation in which the United States since 1913-1933-2010. In fact, the door opened on the economics of totalitarianism, was with the founding of the Federal Reserve System in 1913.. Privately owned by the World Bank of London. The European Banking families have been in the nation wrecking business for quite some time.. Why would Rockefeller and Morgan want to do this to America, did those two Knights of Malta swear and Oath of allegiance to some foreign power? Seems they did, who holds sway over the Knights of Malta, why the Vatican of course. Damn you'd think people would get it someday ya know.. Things aren't as they seem it seems..
The results of leaving behind the monetary system established by the Constitution have been disastrous, as could be expected. Jefferson warned against paper money and central banks. Washington considered it crime of the first water to allow a printing of bills of credit. (FRNs are debt credit notes in truth). The results have been far reaching and insidious, reaching into every facet of life and overturning, in due time, the very relationship of citizen and government.
For the overturning of the monetary system from one of specie to one of irredeemable paper has brought about the replacement of the Common law by custom. It is well known that the merchant traditionally dealt in bills and notes, based upon customs called Law Merchant. He had his own "law" because he dealt not in substance (coin), but in promises, or " the potentiality of substance". Therefore, he was barred from the process of the Common law courts. Today, however, as there is no constitutional economic system, everyone is deemed a merchant in equity, or in the custom of merchants; this newer status brought on by his dealings of a mercantile nature. What happened to the Common law? It went out with the gold standard. Why, Congress bragged of "suspending" the constitution itself in 1933 when they repudiated the gold standard dollar and all such obligations in House Joint Resolution 192 ( Now 31 USC 463, unless of course they have hidden it again).
Is it possible that there was a plan, or several plans, as to the kind of laws which could be promulgated upon the "new society" where supposedly no one operated at the Common law any more?
Of course it is possible, for HJR 192 opened the door for infinite application of the law Merchant at the Federal level, and the regulatory Roman civil law at the state level. And with the bounds of the Common Law removed from business transactions, all business fell into the class of privilege, just as merchants had always operated. The incredible growth of regulatory law, taxes, and bureaus has been based upon the new "status" created by Congress in a statement of policy, to the end that all persons operate under corporate capacity and, therefore can be taxed and regulated as such.
And true enough, the natural person who does not deal in banks and credit is rare today; almost everyone has given up the status at law for the " convenience" of transacting business in credit. This is essentially the privilege of limited liability for the payment of debts. This is a corporate privilege not existing in the Common law; therefore the jurisdiction over these acts is of a commercial nature. But does this mean that there are no citizens who can and do operate at law? This leads to the question of the Constitution. Is the Constitution a statute enacted by Congress? Or is the Constitution the people's government and the Supreme Law of the Land? If a statute, then it pertains to only a class of persons, who by, reason that that there is no lawful money today, are, in fact, extinct.
If the Constitution be the Supreme Law of the people, by the people, and for the people, then it is the birthright of all citizens of the United States, never to be repealed or undermined by Congress. If a birthright, then it is recoverable at anytime, for like the Prodigal Son, a citizen may choose to leave behind a life of the alien and return home to the law of his Natural Common Laws, the Constitution intended.
In this day of economic strife and destruction, the proposition of changing one's economic status might be increasingly desirable to a citizen. How is he to do this? Through the establishment of a central bank and the repudiation of payment of debts by Congress, the American people, ( u.s. corporate serfs now in truth) were placed upon credit of the Federal Reserve System. As credit does not pay debts at Law, and because there is no lawful money in circulation today with which to pay debts, the citizen is, in fact, an insolvent upon bank credit, using credit to transact business. Not even the Federal Reserve Note can pay a debt, for it is legal tender for debts and not in payment of debts. ( Note Article I, Section 10, says " No state shall make any Thing but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts.")
Yet acts of congress cannot violate the Constitution. And the fact is that congress has attempted to overthrow the Bill of Rights and negate the property rights of every American by removing from the people their sovereign medium of exchange mandated by the Constitution itself.
The Congress on June 5, 1933, bragged of "suspending the Constitution" itself by repudiating payment of debts. This act, in conjunction with acts of the President, deluded the people into giving up their gold coin in exchange for paper intended to be irredeemable henceforward. As a congressman of the day remarked, " these acts had for their design the establishment of a new form of government." That's right, a government controlled by the central bank, the Federal Reserve bank, owned by the World Bank of London..
By creating a new status of insolvency nationwide, the congress opened wide the door for a new system of law; regulatory, commercial law by administrative agencies, bureaus, and courts at both federal and state levels. For all persons of insolvent class or, in other words, all those dealing totally without lawful money in their business affairs, there is a body of customs and usages termed law merchant, or mercantile equity, long used by merchants since the 13th century to expedite disputes in commercial contracts. The custom of merchants is largely enacted under the terms and principles of the Civil Law in the states and legislatures.
How does this effect the status of a citizen in the court? Due to the economic situation, it is assumed that all persons operate on credit and that the common Law is now where applicable. All are assumed to be " merchants in equity", (slaves-serfs-u.s.-corporate citizens - not free Americans). And thereby governed by the "general commercial law." (code) See the Modern Commercial Code is Ancient Babylonian Law here.
This brings us to the Erie R.R. v. Tompkins case of 1938. It was a landmark case because it overturned the 96 year old doctrine of Swift v. Tyson. Stated in Erie, " there is no general federal common law," meaning that there is no base of common law generic to the states. This decision was a direct ratification of HJR 192, passed five years earlier, and effects a repudiation of the basic principle of the Constitution, that the people as one created for themselves as Americans a general law and a supreme law, binding upon every government official in the United States, both state and federal. it is the birthright of every natural person who is a citizen of these United States, never to be abrogated, diminished, or " suspended" by the governmental offices it created, or by any other office created under " commercial law."
In fact, Erie implied that the " commercial law " or law merchant, was the province of the state as common law ! This travesty of decisional law is the central issue today for anyone wishing to maintain a status of citizen law, for it necessitates a statement of repudiation by the person himself. This could be called an equity disclaimer statement.
like this;
This natural person is by all intents and purposes a merchant and trader at law on a cash basis, without recourse to Standard Lawful Money, and enjoys no privilege of limited liability for the payment of debts. I deny all jurisdictions of mercantile equity brought on by HJR 192 of June 5, 1933. expressly Law Merchant, Roman Civil Law, and Admiralty Law, and demand all of my rights at the Common Law..
A statement of this sort is the beginning pleading in any case today in order to establish the Common Law status of the party in court. As mentioned above, the application of laws is the court's function. If the status of one of the parties is a bar to the action, then it must be so pleaded, by stating the facts surrounding the case, and the facts surrounding the law. The court and police will try many illegal acts of intimidation to get you to give up this approach. They want to force you to surrender to their "system" of total control.. Don't give in to them. They resort to these actions because fear is their only weapon, and they know it.. As well many in our society in the private sector, under these communist statutes and their status as a serf, which the majority of are not even aware of, will also attack and persecute you.. I know, I've been at this for thirty years..
And further more, for instance in the Kangaroo Traffic courts, the statement of status is one of the facts surrounding the case. then, a pleading that the magistrate's court lacks jurisdiction over a free sovereign sentient Person is a fact surrounding the law, for they try quasi-criminal cases upon "traffic code" where there is no crime. How can the citizen injure the state by exercising his right to travel? He cannot. (Interesting note; "Traffic, is found to be one of the definitions of "commerce." Another is " transport of persons." Therefore, it is plain to see the "traffic code" is but the regulatory " custom of merchants " for those involved in commerce. A drivers license is, then, evidence of a commercial contract with the state seal upon it! "Code" means a body of regulatory law.) These arguments with these tyrants can become a words definitions game of trivial pursuits, you'd best be good at it, one slip up and they'll pounce on you for your wallet.
A law which contemplates compelling all persons to purchase a driver's license is null and void and it violates the status of the citizen. No law can be made which would effect a change of status to detriment of rights. What, then, do we think of HJR 192? What if the state attempts to impose licensure of occupations or activities ? Of course they have done so, but;
These laws are intended to operate upon the privileged person, being a corporation or otherwise enfranchised individual. There is another fact to surround the law -- intent of the lawmakers. (lawbreakers in truth) In Idaho law, that is decisional law of Idaho's highest court, if there is a question between an application of a statute which would be unconstitutional and one which would not, the choice must be in favor of the lawful application so as to preserve the statute. Therefore, in the individual case, it is far wiser to plead that the statute is unconstitutional; For, one can easily see, the statute may have an application in some other case, making it a constitutional law. It is assumed in our law that the legislators were aware of their limits and intended no violation of the supreme law in any enactments.
To whom does a statute apply? That is the question for the court's judgment. Policemen on the street, or bureaucrats or agents cannot decide for themselves, and they should be so instructed. The courts are the forum for redress of grievance, and let the word transmit to the legislature of its ignorance.
And furthermore;
There is a distinct separation of Sovereign Constitutional American citizen and citizen of the Corporate United States. Notice the words employed in this sentence and their relationship to each other as I quote from General Rules of Pleading, R 8 page 80;
" Residence is not the equivalent of citizenship; and wherever jurisdiction is predicated upon the citizenship (alienage) of the parties, an allegation that a party is a resident of a certain state or foreign country is not a sufficient allegation of citizenship. An allegation that a party is an American citizen is insufficient, for a person may be an American citizen but not a citizen of a state. Similarly, an allegation that a person is not a citizen of the United States is an insufficient allegation of alienage." See discussion under ~ 1332 PO, 75 [1-3], [1-4].
So you have to understand this fact and where you stand in relation to that entity called the " United States" in any legal reality concerning tax codes, and other contractual agreements with the governments. In other words, substitute American for non resident alien whenever you see the term nonresident alien when talking about citizenship. You will now see your "constitutional issues" you have put before the courts (which in reality are commercial corporate tribunals) simply melt away because you have not properly brought before the tribunal the right issues. Under the Erie Doctrine, the trier of fact UCC 4-503, is making the presumption UCC 1-201 (31), that you are a " United States citizen." Wouldn't that be, " the state of the forum" that you are presumed to be inhabiting? Isn't that a "state" of corporate jurisdiction, not a geographical state jurisdiction? So the phrase nonresident alien, contains two terms and has two meanings. Nonresident, for corporate contract, therefore Alien/Stranger to that particular part of the country. See how quickly I changed from citizenship to contract using one word, "nonresident" ? The definition of "resident" in Black's Law Dictionary has many meanings also.
Read 26 USC 865 (g) over and over until your mind cannot hold any doubt.
(g) UNITED STATES RESIDENT; NONRESIDENT,---For purposes of this section --- (1) In General, --- Except as otherwise provided in this subsection --- (A) UNITED STATES RESIDENT, --- The term " United States Resident" means --- ( i ) any individual who has a tax home ( as defined in section 911 (d) (3) and in the United States, and ( ii ) any corporation, partnership, trust, or estate which is a United States person (as defined in section 7701 (a) (30))). (B) NONRESIDENT --- The term "nonresident" means any person other than a United States resident.
Are you an individual listed in 911 (d) (3)?
911 (d) DEFINITIONS AND SPECIAL RULES.-- For purposes of this section -- (3) TAX HOME,-- The term "tax home" means, with respect to any individual, such individual's home for purposes of section 162 (a) (2) ( relating to traveling expenses while away from home). An individual shall not be treated as having a tax home in a foreign country for any period which his abode is within the United States (Corporation).
How to make slaves without them being aware of it.. They volunteer for it. This UnConstitutional Union was formed after the Civil War. The few in power will never tolerate the many having power. Contracted serfs have no powers. Of course the tyrants can never really control all mens minds, some men still figure them out, and challenge them. While the majority submits. As you can see, once a Person becomes aware of this knowledge that Person then becomes a threat to the corporation, which does not want the people to know the truth, so they hide it in legal jargon, they would rather imprison or kill the knowledgeable person rather than admit to the truth..And they have in fact done both. Political prisoners have been assassinated for centuries. Corporate government is not nice.
Sovereign States or United States ?
The state in which you live has adopted the Uniform Commercial Code for its operation. The Uniform Commercial Code is contract law. The state have given up their Constitutional Sovereignty in exchange for simple administrative contract law. It has become nothing more than a corporation acting under corporate law. This being the case, the state has become a fiduciary under the Federal Government's granted privilege corporation. All "state" employees are technically federal employees beholden to the Federal Government and under the Federal jurisdiction. Obviously in the last few years we have seen state governments letting the feds boss them around, it has become more intense over the years. The state governments have also agreed to make every " resident" a legal strawman corporation under the U.S. corporation, the organic man has been replaced by the corporate serf. The fight for this sovereign versus slave status in America has been going on since the pre Civil War era. So the conspiracy to kill the Constitution, Bill of Rights, Declaration of Independence, is not a new conspiracy, it is and old one. The fight itself over the Freedom of mankind or the enslavement of mankind is ancient. Only the circumstances have changed, the fight continues to this day.
Only a nonresident alien ( to the United States or federal corporate government ) can be free as a Sovereign Individual citizen of a Free and Sovereign State in which they live and have their livelihood. The Federal Government does not have lawful jurisdiction in any State of the Union. This is why we have seen the feds issuing " guidelines" to the various states suggesting such guidelines be adopted. Or using blackmail to force the several states to adopt such guidelines. If the Federal Government had lawful jurisdiction they would not issue guidelines - they would dictate directly to each state - YOU WILL DO SO AND SO OR ELSE !!! of course another ploy is the U.N. treatises and the environmentalist movement. The ESA..etc. etc.. If you think about it, the tax paying collective has been led to believe this authority is their authority, this of course is a lie. The corporation has created a feudal society, since the collective mind cannot agree you have scattered out problems. Thus a nation of scatter brains fighting over environmental resources, people from New York thinking they are entitled to what happens in Idaho concerning some " environmental eco system or endangered species emergency" while the corporate state steals that which they fight over out from underneath them, really a pretty brilliant strategy once you discover this agenda. The people will eventually have no rights to anything, even under any pretense of rights, as they have now. We are being dictated to now. In Free America.
Continued;
The United States of America is a CROWN corporation. In 1604, a group of leading politicians, businessmen, merchants, manufacturers and bankers, met in Greenwich, then in the English county of Kent, and formed a corporation called the Virginia Company in anticipation of the imminent influx of white Europeans, mostly British at first, into the North American continent. Its main stockholder was King James I, and the original charter for the company was completed by April 10th 1606. After the original 13 American colonies won their ?independence? and an ?independent? country was formed after 1783, the Virginia Company simply changed its name to... the United States of America.
There are two USAs, or rather a USA and a usA. The united states of America with a lower case ?u? and ?5? are the lands of the various states. These lands, are still owned by THE CROWN as the head of the old Virginia Company. Then there is the United States of America, capital ?U? and ?S?, which is the 68 square miles of land west of the Potomac River on which is built the federal capital, Washington DC and the District of Columbia. It also includes the US protectorates of Guam and Puerto Rico. The United States of America is not a country... "United States" means -- (A) a federal corporation 28 USC $ 3002(15), Ch.176, It is clear that the United States...is a corporation... 534 FEDERAL SUPPLEMENT 724.
It is well settled that "United States" et. al. is a corporation, originally incorporated February 21, 1871 under the name "District of Columbia," 16 Stat. 419 Chap. 62 (reorganized June 11, 1878); a bankrupt organization per House Joint Resolution 192 of June 5, 1933, Senate Report 93-549m and Executive Orders 6072, 6102, 6111, and 6246."
One needs to look at the origins of copyright law to see under what laws the corporation of United States was formed, hint: it will take you back to Britain. As well, the inferior negotiating status of America during the Paris Treaty shows that it was not ever considered to be a country like the United Kingdom.
Big Brother in the form of an increasingly powerful government and in an increasingly powerful private sector will pile the records high with reasons why privacy should give way to national security, to law and order, to efficiency of operation, to scientific advancement and the like. - William O. Douglas (1898-1980), U. S. Supreme Court Justice.
And Furthmore ;
Are you a human being ? Or are you a corporation ? A corporation under contract with the u.s. corporation, thus making you their vassel, you know, that's a slave.
"persons" are defined in law dictionaries as "corporations" and not men/women of flesh and blood. I have oft repeated that it is vital to separate the two, particularly if you transgress a statute and end up in a court-room.
Roger decided to not pay his council tax and see where it all ended up. The result is pretty stupendous. He got a judge to agree that he Roger Hayes, the man, was not MR ROGER HAYES, a corporation defined in law.
What does it all mean? In essence, it means that every time you bend a statute, you, the flesh and blood human, is not responsible. Your legal fiction is. I imagine that your legal fiction, like mine, has no money. So the liability for paying your council tax, a parking fine, a speeding fine, your income tax, or corporation tax, falls on your legal fiction, not you, the human.
Which is pretty cool. Because I have been saying that for the last few years. Most people have assumed I am a Mental.
And Furthermore :
The Fourteenth Amendment 1868;
Since federalism must function within the jurisdiction of Civil Law, (Not the Constitutional Common law) and a federal government ( The Provincial Roman Empire) must have SUBJECTS in order to exist and flourish, a subject population (slaves under contract) had to be created in the United States. Those sovereign ( not slaves ) individuals running about, minding their own business, had somehow, to be induced (tricked) to come aboard the federal ship-of-state. One of the foremost preliminary steps in accomplishing this objective was the Fourteenth Amendment. (The red communists 14th amendment ) added to the Constitution of the United States of America. Proposed by resolution on June 13th, 1866; "ratified" July 9, 1868; ( Under Reconstruction Duress ) " certified" July 29, 1868, this Amendment stated;
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, AND SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION THEREOF, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside...
Article IV, Section 2, of the " National " Constitution acknowledges only State citizenship. Now comes the Fourteenth Amendment, stated in a way that conceals its real consequences. Those consequences are; If you are born or naturalized in the United States, you can have United States citizenship if you will SUBJECT yourself to the jurisdiction of the United States federal government!
The distinction between citizenship of the United States and citizenship of a State is here clearly recognized and established.
" Not only may a man be a citizen of the United States without being a citizen of a State, but an important element is necessary to convert the former into the latter. He must reside within the State to make him a citizen of it, but it is only necessary that he should be born or naturalized in the United States to be a citizen of the Union. It is quite clear, then, that there is a citizenship of the United States, and a citizenship of a State, which are distinct from each other, and which depend upon different characteristics or circumstances in the individual." ---Slaughter House Cases, 16 Wall. 36, 74 ( 1873). --
Did you get that ? There be two types of legal status, one is Corporate Subject Slave Status. And the other, which I prefer, is the Sovereign Free of Corporate contracts Status. Both are legal. To attempt to live under the Sovereign Common Law Status as the Founders of our Constitutional Bill of Rights and our Declaration of Independence, will cause you to be persecuted, hated upon, mocked, attacked, by the slaves under contract with the federal slave massa. The Feds do have a nice system, their slaves feel free, even if they are not truly free, and their slaves grumble about how much massa steals out their pockets. The whole debacle is really funny.. But shush now, if you tell the slave about his slave status he'll ignore you, call you whacked, etc.. etc..
" While the amendment did not create a national citizenship it has the effect of making that citizenship "paramount and dominant" instead of "derivative and dependent" upon State citizenship. " ----Colgate v. Harvey, 296 U.S. 404, 427 (1935).
So, how does a Sovereign individual become a subject to the jurisdiction of the federal massa government ? One way is to violate a law that the government is authorized, and granted jurisdiction, to prosecute (Treason, counterfeiting and crimes against the Law of Nations); another way is to be in its employ; the third way, least known and understood by trusting inhabitants of the various states, is applying for its privileges and/or partaking of its benefits. Entering into contractual agreement with its agency.
THE PHRASE "SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION" RELATES TO TIME OF BIRTH, and one not owing ALLEGIANCE AT BIRTH cannot become a citizen save by subsequent naturalization, individually or collectively. The words do not mean merely geographical location, but "COMPLETELY SUBJECT TO THE POLITICAL JURISDICTION." {---Elk v. Wilkens, 112, U.S. 94, 102 (1884), holding that an Indian born within the United States in a recognized tribe, although he willingly may surrender his tribal relations, if that SURRENDER is not accepted by the United States, he does not become a citizen of the United States by virtue of the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment.---}
With incredible success, the federal massa subsequently played their tune, " Something for Nothing" until the shipmates were firmly bound to the ship by their feudal contractual bonds. Those bonds can be broken, but it is a tough process, and one best not err along the way, or one must start over. In other words, it is very hard work. I don't know of many slaves who are willing to go the distance to truly be free of this Babylonian group of Pied Pipers ruling this country.
Of course it would be easy to back up this tid bit of information with various Congressional Globes, Annals and Records of Congress, toss in several Court cases, a few " Ratified " Amendment's to the Constitution, etc. etc.. But then the blog would be about 12 miles long and non entertaining. Besides, serfs suffer from cognitive dissonance and attention Deficit Disorder..
Welcome to the u.s.federal corporate government slave plantation.
And furthermore:
Act alleging crime is Bill of Attainder
The parking ticket, or any type of issued citation or complaint is issued out of the mind and hand of the Executive Branch of City, County, or State Government and imposes a predetermined punishment on persons in the form of a fine or penalty without any Judicial process or trial. A Bill of Attainder is defined as ; " Legislative acts, no matter what their form, that apply to persons in such a way as to inflict punishment on them without a judicial trial is nothing more than a Bill of Attainder" ( pains and penalties). U.S. vs Brown, 381 U.S. 437, 448-49. U.S. vs Lovett, 328 U.S. 303, 315.
" A special act of the legislature which inflicts a punishment less than death upon persons supposed to be guilty...without any conviction in the ordinary course of judicial proceedings." 2 Wood. Lect. 625. " The clause in the constitution prohibiting bills of attainder includes bills of pains and penalties." Story Const. Sec. 1338; Hare Am. Const. L. 549; Cummings v. Missouri, 4 Wall. 323; Fletcher v. Peck, 6 Cran. 138.
The issue of what is a bill of attainder and of pains and penalties was well settled in the case of Cummings v. Missouri where the United States Supreme Court stated; " The theory upon which our political institutions rest is, that all men have certain inalienable rights -- that among those are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; and that in the pursuit of happiness all avocations, all honors, all positions, are alike open to every one, and that in the protection of these rights all men are equal before the law. Any deprivation or suspension of any of these rights for past conduct is punishment, and can be in no way otherwise defined." Cummings v. Missouri, supra, p. 321-2.
" A bill of attainder is a legislative act which inflicts punishment without judicial trial." " If the punishment be less than death, the act is termed a bill of pains and penalties. Within the meaning of the Constitution, bills of attainder include bill of pains and penalties. In these cases, the legislative body, in addition to its legitimate functions, exercises the powers and office of judge; it assumes, in the language of the textbooks, judicial magistracy; it pronounces upon the guilt of the proofs produced, whether conformable to the rules of evidence or otherwise, and fixes the degree of punishment in accordance with its own notions of the enormity of the offense." Cummings, supra, p. 323.
Obviously the parking ticket or any type of issued citation or complaint meet all of the criteria elaborated upon by the Supreme Court. These types of ticketed regulations allows City, County, or State Government to exercise the powers and office of judge (individual has been convicted by them and fined), pronounce guilt without trial ( guilt announced by demand for payment of fine which can transpire after conviction of guilty), determine proof (proof of guilt has been predetermined to be the person to whom the contractual agreement was with, drivers license, license plates, or other). and fix punishment ( as indicated on the citation).
The high Court went on to say; " Bills of this sort,....have been most usually passed....in...periods, in which all nations are most liable ( as well the free as the enslaved ). to forget their duties, and to trample upon the rights and liberties of others." Cummings, Supra. The Supreme Court reiterated the validity of the Cummings case in U.S. vs. Lovett. In the Lovett case they also referred to Ex Parte Garland, 4 Wall 333, in which they stated that these types of bills...." stand for the proposition that legislative acts no matter what their form, that apply either to named individuals or to easily ascertainable members of a group in such a way as to inflict punishment on them without a judicial trial are bills of attainder prohibited by the Constitution. " United States v. Lovett, 328, U.S. 303, 315. Continuing in the same case they said ; " The Constitution outlaws this entire category of punitive measures. The amount of punishment is immaterial to the classification of a challenged statute. But punishment is a prerequisite. " Punishment presupposes an offense, not necessarily an act previously declared criminal, but an act for which retribution is exacted." U.S. v. Lovett, supra, p. 324; Also see Garner v. Los Angeles Board, 341 U.S. 716; and Christie v. Lueth, 61 N.W. 2d 338, 341. These type of acts clearly fall within the scope of Constitutional prohibition, United States Constitution, Article 1, Section 9, Clause 3; and Article 1, Section 10 states; " No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto law shall be passed." (emphasis mine).
And; " No State shall...pass any Bill of Attainder..." On the face of these types of ticketed regulations of City, County, or State Government complaints it plainly states; " The fine for this violation is $ if paid before the court date. You may pay the clerk of the court. Delinquencies are subject to additional penalties." The City, County, or State Government is issuing complaints determining guilt of individuals, and imposing punishments in the form of a fine all without due process and judicial trial. Prima facia proof of this fact is in the wording of the alleged citation. On the face of the citation it states; " the fine for this violation is..." This statement amounts to a blatant confession that the City, County, or State Government has charged the individual, found him guilty, and is requiring the individual to pay a specific dollar amount, all without the benefit of due process and Judicial trial. From the wording " Delinquencies are subject to additional penalties." it is obvious that guilt has further predetermined. Since guilt has been predetermined, and when some individual does not pay the fine ( punishment) entered on the face of the complaint, that person will further be subjected to additional punishment for his predetermined guilt through delinquency charges. This demand of and imposition of a delinquency charge for an unproven offense is further prima facie evidence of predetermined guilt after filing the charge, predetermining guilt, and imposing of a fine does not negate the invalid status of the enactment creating the offense. As applied to Free and natural Persons it is plainly a Bill of Attainder ( Bill of Pains and Penalties) and violates the law of the land..
As you read this series of Free Natural Persons compared to serf contractual persons, you must know these judges and their police in Idaho, love us Free Natural Persons with our heads full of knowledge very much.. ha ha.. NOT !
The full significance of the clause " law of the land " is said to be statutes which would deprive a citizen of the rights of a person or property without a regular trial according to the course and usage of the common law would not be the law of the land. Hoke v. Hendrickson, 15 N.C. 15, 25. " By law of the land is more clearly intended the general law, a law which hears before it condemns ; which proceeds upon inquiry, and renders judgment only after trial. The meaning is that every citizen shall hold his life, liberty, property and immunities, under the protection of the general rules which govern our society. Everything which may pass under the form of enactment is not, therefore to be considered the law of the land." ( Emphasis mine) Dartmouth College Case, 4 Wheat 518..
The enactment authorizing such summary proceedings by the City, County, or State Government is clearly applied to Natural persons in such a way as to inflict punishment on them without judicial trial and is therefore unconstitutional bill of pains and penalties as applied to Natural Persons. Of course if you pay this Roman Bill of Attainder then is an act of confession. There can no doubt that this act can and does pertain to those artificial subjects and members who are wards or creations of the City, County, or State Government via contractual enslavement documents or licensure, in those cases it is not unconstitutional. Government has the right to control, limit, restrict, and regulate the actions of those artificial subjects they create, and therefore, those artificial persons are legal subjects of City, County, or State Government bills of attainder. What they did not tell you, of course are the terms of their contractual agreements, they just demand you contract with them. To con in this fashion is Fraud. They defrauded the artificial person of his Free Sovereign Rights under Natural law. THE CONTRACTED SERF waived his NATURAL rights.
And furthermore;
Rights of a freeman
Article 1, Section 3, of the Idaho State Constitution states; " The state of Idaho is an inseparable part of the American Union, and the Constitution of the United States is the Supreme law of the land."
Other State Constitutions also make references concerning the information in the above paragraph. The Constitution of the United States states; " This Constitution...shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby..."
There can be no doubt that all judges are bound by the Constitution of the United States which is a part of the Common law, which nullifies any legislative law or statute that violates the rights of a Sovereign Freeman.
In this country The Natural Rights of the Individual organic man precede the government or the establishment of states, which is an ancient maxim of law. Rights are acknowledged above government or they cease to be Rights and become privileges authorized by the government or state. Unfortunately since the Wilson Administration the American people have, unknownst to themselves surrendered their Organic Natural Sovereignty via contractual agreements using deceptions, government using slight of hand inserted itself between God and Man, thus attempting to become as a god. The drivers license contract, the checking and savings contract, the Socialist Security Number contract, the W-4 W-2 1099 contracts.. The license plates on the vehicle contract, the marriage license contract, all contracts make you a slave to the state. They hand you and unConstitutional Bill Attainder contract, thus you enter the Admiralty Maritime Jurisdiction of the Magistrate Merchant And Equity law Court and you pay up because you are a slave.
The rights governing contracts, money, appearance, pleading, and pleas are more ancient than the history of this country and were well established in the early days of American Jurisprudence. It has been the arbitrary rule making on the part of government officials at work expediting the judicial system into Streamlined Courts of Equity and chancery proceedings, which have been abrogating Free and natural Citizens Rights and Freedoms. " Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making legislation which would abrogate them." -- Miranda V Arizona, 384, US 436, 491.
" This Person hereby lays claim to the absolute inalienable rights of contract, freedom, and liberty - - that is, the claim of unrestricted action except so far as to claim of others necessitates restriction - - and the right to free locomotion... There is a monstrous difference in restricting actions of locomotion and prohibiting and commanding actions, or the lack of, and punishing penalty, fines, and imprisonment of persons who fail to comply when the action committed by the Person has not, in fact, caused any loss or damage of another;s life, liberty, or property as opposed to those classes of crimes where anothers life, liberty, or Property has been damaged or lost. Restriction of various functions on certain classes of commercial travelers and other juristic persons may be necessary, however, penal action is not. A penal action is nothing more than an action or information brought by an " agent of the king" (policeman) and in which the penalty goes to the " king" (government). --Bouvier Law Dictionary, P. 2551.
Any Freeman who claims his rights cannot be forced to comply with penal offenses. Under the Common Law there can be no constructive offenses. United States V. Lacher, 134 US 624; Todd V. United States, 158 US 282. It should be understood that a constructive offense is nothing more than an act which may or may not be performed; the doing that which a penal law forbids to be done or omitting to do what it commands.
Penal statutes are essentially those actions which impose a penalty or punishment arbitrarily extracted for some act or commission thereof on the part of some person. (Blacks Law Dictionary, 5th Ed., P. 1019) Such statutes operate to compel a performance ( Black, P 1020) and inflict a punishment by statute for its violation. (Strathairly, 124 US 571)
" In any appearance of this Free and Natural Citizen, it must be noted that no jurisdiction other than the Common law will be recognized and executive chancery is specifically denied. This denial includes state codes that are in violation of the rights of man, and in this case a code demanding a specific performance commanding that a certain thing can or cannot be done, making said statute an unconstitutional statute."Constitutional and legal rights are protected by the law, by the Constitution; but if government does not create the idea of right or original rights, it acknowledges them; just as government does not create property or values and money, it regulates them. If it were otherwise, the question would present itself, whence does government come ? Whence does it derive its own right to create rights ? By compact ? But whence did the contracting parties derive their right to create a government that is to make rights? We would be consistently led to adopt the idea of a government by just divinum; that is, a government deriving its authority to introduce and establish rights ( bestowed on it in particular) from a source wholly separate from human society and the ethical character of man, in the same manner in which we acknowledge revelation to come from a source not human." -- Bouvier, P. 2961
The powers of our government are supposed to be severely limited and this has been best presented by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in 1803; " The powers of the legislature are defined and limited; and those limits may not be mistaken, or forgotten, the constitution is written. To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing, if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained ? The distinction between a government with limited and unlimited powers is abolished, if those limits do not confine the persons on whom they are imposed, and if acts prohibited and the acts allowed are of equal obligation. It is a proposition too plain to be contested that the constitution controls any legislative act repugnant to it; or, that the legislature may alter the constitution by any ordinary act. " Between these alternatives there is no middle ground. The Constitution is either a superior paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means, or it is on a level with ordinary legislative acts, and, like other acts, is alterable when the legislature shall please to alter it. " If the former part of the alternative be true, then a legislative act contrary to the constitution, is not law; if the latter part be true, then written constitutions are absurd attempts, on the part of the people, to limit power in its own nature illimitable. " If then the courts are to regard the constitution, and the constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the legislature, the constitution, and not such ordinary acts must govern the case to which both apply. " 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 his government - - if it is closed upon him, and cannot be inspected by him? " If such to be the real state of things, this is worse than solemn mockery. To prescribe, or to take this oath, becomes equally a crime. " It is also not entirely unworthy of observation, that in declaring what shall be the supreme law of the land, the constitution itself is first mentioned; and not the laws of the United States generally, but those only which shall be made in pursuance of the constitution, have that rank." " Thus, the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United states confirms and strengthens the principles, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution is void; and that courts as well as other departments, are bound by the instrument." --Marbury V. Madison, 1C. 137, 176-179 In the United States all three branches of government, state or national, are granted " LIMITED" powers. These powers are granted by " THE PEOPLE. " The people are, in fact, individuals. The PEOPLE are principals and authorize agency to the three branches of government. The concept of limited powers of government establishes the fact that the agent is not granted sufficient power in any case to invert the relationship so as to make the individual an agent and the state his principal. Such an inversion would prohibit acts of " FREE AGENCY " which are privy to a principal and are outside the discretion of an agent. Since our government is a government of self governing individuals, the individuals have, and must have, the SOVEREIGN powers..
If the people, as principals, do not possess the Sovereign powers, they possess no power from which they can convey a limited portion to their agents, the government, and so any government that would act presumably under the constitution and convert people from the principals and sovereigns to agents is, infact, a pretender, a government of pretense, because it does not derive its authority from the people. Therefore, the People would be reduced to agents and are no longer the source of authority. Such a government has destroyed it's source of power through usurpation; it has become a principal in violation of it's creator's interests. Government is deriving it's authority from some source outside the People in violation of the operation of a Constitutional Republican form of government and, therefore, inverts the relationship of the individual, principal, and the state, agent. This violates the " limited powers " Doctrine. The contractual agreements you make with government changes the position of authority. They do not tell you this up front. They just tell you must be under their contracts.
The controlling principle in the Common Law is that no man may order the life, actions, and decisions of another man. Each individual being answerable to his Creator for his actions and their consequences, must have the right to choose the acts. The Common Law provides protection guaranteeing man's independent action in all ways, unless there is a responsible swearing to an allegation that a man, individual, sovereign person, is the probable cause of damage to anothers property, injury to anothers Person, or infringement on anothers Rights. The oath attending a swearing of charges protects the accused by making the Plaintiff answerable to perjury if falsely brought. Our heritage, the Common Law, requires no performance of the individual. The Common Law demands and secures restitution and punishment for wrongs.
Treaties and Statutes are not law. Contracts impaired by trickery and treachery, built upon fraud, since the people were not made aware of that sovereignty they lost in the bargain of contracting with the Feds and the States and trading authority for state strawman corporate slave status. The Free and Natural Organic Person has the inalienable right to contract with anyone this person pleases, and the government can pass no law " impairing " the obligation of contracts. State granted privileges to juristic persons have their source in the limited powers by granted by the natural individuals of the state. The licensing asks for more; for some reason it asks for a signature, and that is contractual and constitutes a presumed voluntary waiver of Common Law process, a person has unknowingly given up constitutional Freedoms, Natural Organic individual Sovereignty, and become a serf. Thus the person has volunteered to be entered into police state courts of chancery. Licensing requires such information which should be considered private, which the licensing agents do not keep private. The State cannot compel Sovereign Persons to waive their right to privacy. The operation of licensing statutes requires all of these private things which it cannot compel a Free and Natural Citizen ( Freeman) to provide, whether or not it is a statute. Cited as proper authority is the following;
" An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed." Norton v. Shelby County p. 442 " The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and the name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of enactment, an unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed." 16 Am. Jur. 2nd 177.
About now, one should be realizing what has been done to citizens of America.. They have been " legally " enslaved using deceptions. Does this not prove the fact that the state has conspired against the Constitution and the Sovereign Individuals of this country. They have resorted to using the gun to force us into contractual agreements with them. They have used force against us.
1) " Permission to do something which would otherwise be illegal," and 2) " A grant to use property in which one possesses no estate."
And Furthermore;
Rights of a Sovereign
Each law relating to the anti Constitutional police power of a state involves the question. First, is there a threatened danger ? Second, does the regulation involve a constitutional right ? Third, is the regulation reasonable ? 1. First, is there a threatened danger ? Here is the question needs to be asked, just what is a threatened danger ? Can there be a danger in simply carrying a firearm ? Is it a threat to carry a flask of nitro? Is it a threat to have blasting caps in one's possession ? Is it a threat to drive an automobile or fly a plane ? Is it a threat to be a Karate expert ? Is it a threat to carry a long pointed and sharpened pencil ? What kills more people per year, --- is it the medical community, how about cancer, from FDA approved foods polluted with toxic chemicals, how about automobile wrecks ? Wars ? Abortions ? All of those each alone kill more Americans than guns do. In fact auto wrecks kill more Americans per year than the war in Nam killed American soldiers in ten years.. What then is a threatened danger to our society ? Is it a mad husband or wife ? 2. Second, does the regulation involve a constitutional right ? The state possesses the police power to protect the public health, morals, and safety by the legislation appropriate to that end which does not encroach upon the rights guaranteed by the national constitution. --Missouri K and T Ry. Co. v. Haber, 169 U.S. 628. Rights founded in law or statute are mere legal rights. However, inalienable rights are not granted by government through codes or statutes and can only inhere in and exist between moral beings. The People of a country organize the government and give government its powers, and in the case of the United States of America, the people reserved for themselves all inalienable Rights and so declared them through the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights, Rights then, proceed government or the establishment of states. Rights are acknowledged above government and their states, which is better expressed by the maxim " Ne ex regula jus sumatur, sed ex jurequod est, regula fiat." Both legal rights and inalienable rights are protected by the Constitution of the United States and statutory laws enacted by Congress or legislative bodies, however, government does not create the idea of rights or original rights, it simply acknowledges them.
Inalienable Rights then, are claims of the people that inhere in the very nature of man himself. Rights can only inhere in and exist between moral beings, not between government and man, nor government and government. Government can give Civil rights, or what are commonly referred to as privileges, to any entity it regulates or creates as in the case of corporations, but since government is not a moral body it cannot give that which it does not itself possess, and government possesses no inalienable rights.
" To secure the Rights of the People, the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution of the United States, and the Bill of Rights were penned and is the Supreme Law of the land. " The constitution is either a superior paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means, or it is on a level with ordinary legislative acts, and like other acts, is alterable when the legislature shall please to alter it. If then the courts are to regard the constitution, and the constitution is superior to any ordinary legislation, the constitution, and not such ordinary act govern the case to which they both apply. Thus, the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution is void; and that courts as well as other departments (USFWS-ESA-USFS-CIA-FBI-NSA-U.N. - Agenda 21 - Sustainable Development - etc. etc. etc.) are bound by the instrument." Marbury v. Madison 1 C 137, 176-179. It is also clear that no state Constitution can espouse anything that would be in contravention with the Federal Constitution. If any State Constitution violates the principles stated in the Federal Constitution, that provision or statement is null and void from its inception as though it had never existed as; An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed...Norton v Shelby, p. 442.
Of course Madison is referring to the period between 1787-1868.. That Constitutional Law fell in 1868..That is where men fail to recognize what has taken place..
The Republic of these Protestant United States of America which lasted between 1787-1868, was replaced by the anti Declaration of Independence, anti Constitutional Roman Civil Law which we see in this corporate Jesuit Provincial Empire far removed from John Lockes Treatise on Freedom, since 1868 onwards. It is quite clear why the Jesuit Order found themselves EXPELLED from 83 Nations in the last 500 years, because those peoples of those nations still had real leaders, and courage, and the mental fortitude to point to and place blame where blame was due and remove those infiltrating Saboteurs, obviously more people per capita realized the truth than is the case today, that sadly is our downfall. The Vatican, the U.N., the federal corporate Jesuit provincial government laying siege to its fifty provinces and especially punishing the most independent thinking western rural populations.. Using their Aldobrandini (Satan) UNICEP think tanks, their U.N. and their Club of Romes environmentalist fraud movement destroying what we westerners built up over the last century. So without returning to a true Republic of these Protestant United States of America which lasted between 1787-1868, and instead still believing in the system described above which has replaced it, thinking we white men believing in true freedom shall repair and take control of a system of government not of the founders is a fools game at best. The enemy is in 100% control of the tea party movement, and this new Republican House many very foolish conservatives are putting their faith into.. It's still a rattle snake, and you guys still missed stomping it on its head and merely cut off its rattlers.. Best of luck to ya because you are getting burned next..The real wolves, jackals, walk upright on their hind legs, smile and lie.. We need to make it 84 nations and now.
" An unconstitutional law is void, and is as no law. An offense created by it is not a crime. A conviction under it is merely erroneous, but is illegal or void, and cannot be legal cause of imprisonment. " Ex Parte Siebold, U.S. page 376
United Nations Treaties included !
During the learning process over the years, figuring this out, I did argue with Judges concerning these matters.. One Judge was so impressed with my self taught law and knowledge, we sat down in private and he pointed me in the direction of the real problem. I explained it in a nut shell above..
I also did not hear one new congressional winning candidate say any thing against United Nations Treatises, Agenda 21.. Nor did any of them express the idea of returning to the rule of law as expressed by the Founders of this Nation, which would be the 1787-1868 real version of law.In fact the Paul camp said the Agenda 21 Sustainable Development was a non issue and was not a threat to private property rights, nor interfering in constitutional law.. Call the new congressman and ask him yourself..
Keep dreaming...
It appears that this ” socialist ” and very anti Constitutional, contractual legal system being used in this u.s. corporate federal empire is fascist, and I prove it . The majority in this country believes everyone should pay the tax, get a drivers license, etc.etc. When in fact the truth by legal definition proves other wise, yet to bring this subject up causes the contracted individual status majority members in our society to attack, vilify, demonize, imprison, even slaughter, yes I've had friends killed by the police state, jailed, railroaded, those of us using another legal status protected by the Supreme Court. So are left and right wing Socialists Fascists, in the ” free ” country.. Read my blogs and decide for yourself.
The most significant identity an individual can have is his status in the world of law. From his position and standing in relation to the state flow's his entire capacity to do, create, and exist at his highest level. In the United States, a citizen has rights which are constitutionally guaranteed, not to be restricted by government.
But there are natural rights and there are rights created by government, the difference being manifested in the status of the person in question. The natural rights, or rights at common law, are those belonging to natural persons -- those people are citizens in the United States and who possess the power of political action. These inalienable rights of men, as the Declaration of Independence calls them, are absolute in our governmental system, not to be infringed or abridged by any office or process of government powers. Only Natural persons or mortal man has political rights. These "institutory" powers are where we shall focus; the created rights held by subjects of franchise, or other privileges granted by the state, are of another nature and not in the same class with the rights of men. ( Either you are an Organic Free Sovereign Individual, or you are a corporate owned strawman subject, a state owned slave).
All law in America is based on the status of the individual. All legislation, judicial actions, and administrative policy is based on status, for there are different classes of citizens and subjects. ( For example, under the 14th Red Communist Amendment, "equal protection" is applied to corporate "persons" as citizens even though strictly speaking they are simply subjects.) Though a law be termed general and not special, it must be decided by the court as to whom it will apply. The application of laws, or statutes ( as they really are expressions of law) is basically unknown as to the fullest extent of their range. Only in individual cases can it truly be determined according to the facts surrounding the respective case.
Therefore, the status of the party must be determined before the Court should proceed and before the Court can make an intelligent decision. How can status be determined if it is not pleaded? How can it be pleaded except by statements of fact, and of the constitutional application and intent of the particular statute in the case? The way to determining law is to plead all the facts in a case in such a way as to show the status of the parties, and therefore, the rightful scope of the statute. ( I can tell you those magistrates really love it when this happens to them, they''ll recess, clear the court room, before allowing you to proceed, they don't want their dumbed down flock to hear about this status stuff.)
Where fundamental rights are in question, there shall be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them. (Miranda vs. Arizona) Among the most important rights the people hold are protected by the Bill of Rights, but these are only a scant few of all the capacities, abilities and potentials of any human being. The Bill of Rights was only a statement, brief and definite, that the Founders considered the Constitution to be a strictly expressed grant of political power by the people to a governmental structure designed to protect their rights first and foremost, and never, under any pretense, to violate any right held by the people.
Perhaps the right of greatest importance, of greatest value to the free sovereign citizen of these United States in his association with his fellow man, and his government, is the absolute ownership of property, personal property and real property. From this absolute dominion, said Thomas Jefferson, flows all free society, and without it, of course, comes dictatorship and oppression. If the owner of the property shall not have unconditional control and use of it -- who shall ? If the owner shall not reap the profits of the use of property, who shall ? Who shall have the fruits of labor ? Should it be the man whose right it is to labor ? Who, but a Sovereign free citizen, can claim this right?
America was founded on this principle; that no taking of property could occur without just compensation. That is, if government should proceed to demand from the citizen some of his wealth, it shall be only in return for a just service, duly warranted, that was rendered him by government. ( Unless of course you have have been tricked into corporate serf status then they can rob you blind and provide nothing in return, sound familiar ?).
As the constitutional protection of rights is a joint effort between the citizen and his government, this protection is a voluntary one, arising from the consent of the individual, and he must pay for his own government, to whatever extent it serves him. Whereas a corporation holds its wealth in franchise, or at the grace of government, it can therefore be taxed on the holding or profits of that property. However, a natural person has an inalienable right to acquire and possess all the subjects of property, land, goods, etc.. (Article I Section I Idaho Constitution) and not be hindered nor have his rights regulated by his government. A tax on an act is regulation of that act. ( Get the Sovereign free Citizen to obtain a license, thus lowering his legal status to a corporation, thus giving government the authority to help themselves to their fair share for doing nothing).
A tax which is based on the supposed value of a property specie, is a tax on the holding of the property. While taxation to pay for constitutional government is a demand on the possessions of a citizen, the just tax can only be for the services rendered to that citizen according to his particular status in law. To put it in general terms, the natural person has the least taxation upon him, while the corporation must bear the most. " For the natural person owes nothing to the state except for the protection he receives therefrom." (Hale v. Henkel) As rights of property are natural rights, the Natural Person does not owe his government the returns or benefits of his possessions; the corporation does. ( Would you like to become a licensed corporate strawman subject to the states whims?).
Contingent to the right to possess is the right to acquire. Acquiring property in a thing is often done with lawful money; a medium of exchange for all transactions. Without money, men would be severely hampered in their right to acquire. Fundamental rights of property, therefore, include the right to have and use a lawful medium of exchange. But what if the medium has no purchasing power? What if it will not pay debts? How can a man buy when he cannot pay the debt in the transaction? The basic question in property rights is Quid pro quo, or something for something. This is the basic principle of all transactions of the market place, or between private parties. If a man give nothing and receive something, he has robbed his neighbor, and still owes him.
Let me see here now, the government created millions of strawmen corporations, pillaged their income, and hawked their resources, and hawked all private property as well, to those whom they borrow from, and claims WE ALL are in debt to the tune of trillions..And we seem to be losing more of those created privileges quite often. In fact it would appear that dogs have more rights than citizen corporate serfs in this country today. How odd.. Seems someone has made a bad contractual arrangement for themselves.
Money must convey property in something, else it is only a mutual debt. Debt is not a satisfactory proposition to everyone, so debt cannot be a medium of exchange. Article I, Section 10, of the Constitution states; " No state shall make any Thing but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debt. ( Roger Sherman's addition). The founders intended this to be the end of the question of money; gold and silver coin. At the state level, taxation is for duly constituted government, process in the courts, and all other legal transactions of the government. The protection of property rights are also secured in the states, by guaranteeing that no state can enforce collection of taxes or any discharge of debt in anything but gold or silver coin; that is, payment with specie which transfers legal title to property. This clause binds the states down. They are bound to operate at the Common law.
History is rife with examples of the subterfuge and resulting oppression and slavery from paper "money". The Founding Fathers wished, once and for all, to bar the door against this oft repeated debauchery of the peoples wealth. The knew that no surer way to destroy a nation and the quality of life for all its people exists than the insidious horror of paper money, for it drives out the gold, and gives the power of government into the hands of the few. (George Bancroft). Such, though, has been the situation in which the United States since 1913-1933-2010. In fact, the door opened on the economics of totalitarianism, was with the founding of the Federal Reserve System in 1913.. Privately owned by the World Bank of London. The European Banking families have been in the nation wrecking business for quite some time.. Why would Rockefeller and Morgan want to do this to America, did those two Knights of Malta swear and Oath of allegiance to some foreign power? Seems they did, who holds sway over the Knights of Malta, why the Vatican of course. Damn you'd think people would get it someday ya know.. Things aren't as they seem it seems..
The results of leaving behind the monetary system established by the Constitution have been disastrous, as could be expected. Jefferson warned against paper money and central banks. Washington considered it crime of the first water to allow a printing of bills of credit. (FRNs are debt credit notes in truth). The results have been far reaching and insidious, reaching into every facet of life and overturning, in due time, the very relationship of citizen and government.
For the overturning of the monetary system from one of specie to one of irredeemable paper has brought about the replacement of the Common law by custom. It is well known that the merchant traditionally dealt in bills and notes, based upon customs called Law Merchant. He had his own "law" because he dealt not in substance (coin), but in promises, or " the potentiality of substance". Therefore, he was barred from the process of the Common law courts. Today, however, as there is no constitutional economic system, everyone is deemed a merchant in equity, or in the custom of merchants; this newer status brought on by his dealings of a mercantile nature. What happened to the Common law? It went out with the gold standard. Why, Congress bragged of "suspending" the constitution itself in 1933 when they repudiated the gold standard dollar and all such obligations in House Joint Resolution 192 ( Now 31 USC 463, unless of course they have hidden it again).
Is it possible that there was a plan, or several plans, as to the kind of laws which could be promulgated upon the "new society" where supposedly no one operated at the Common law any more?
Of course it is possible, for HJR 192 opened the door for infinite application of the law Merchant at the Federal level, and the regulatory Roman civil law at the state level. And with the bounds of the Common Law removed from business transactions, all business fell into the class of privilege, just as merchants had always operated. The incredible growth of regulatory law, taxes, and bureaus has been based upon the new "status" created by Congress in a statement of policy, to the end that all persons operate under corporate capacity and, therefore can be taxed and regulated as such.
And true enough, the natural person who does not deal in banks and credit is rare today; almost everyone has given up the status at law for the " convenience" of transacting business in credit. This is essentially the privilege of limited liability for the payment of debts. This is a corporate privilege not existing in the Common law; therefore the jurisdiction over these acts is of a commercial nature. But does this mean that there are no citizens who can and do operate at law? This leads to the question of the Constitution. Is the Constitution a statute enacted by Congress? Or is the Constitution the people's government and the Supreme Law of the Land? If a statute, then it pertains to only a class of persons, who by, reason that that there is no lawful money today, are, in fact, extinct.
If the Constitution be the Supreme Law of the people, by the people, and for the people, then it is the birthright of all citizens of the United States, never to be repealed or undermined by Congress. If a birthright, then it is recoverable at anytime, for like the Prodigal Son, a citizen may choose to leave behind a life of the alien and return home to the law of his Natural Common Laws, the Constitution intended.
In this day of economic strife and destruction, the proposition of changing one's economic status might be increasingly desirable to a citizen. How is he to do this? Through the establishment of a central bank and the repudiation of payment of debts by Congress, the American people, ( u.s. corporate serfs now in truth) were placed upon credit of the Federal Reserve System. As credit does not pay debts at Law, and because there is no lawful money in circulation today with which to pay debts, the citizen is, in fact, an insolvent upon bank credit, using credit to transact business. Not even the Federal Reserve Note can pay a debt, for it is legal tender for debts and not in payment of debts. ( Note Article I, Section 10, says " No state shall make any Thing but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts.")
Yet acts of congress cannot violate the Constitution. And the fact is that congress has attempted to overthrow the Bill of Rights and negate the property rights of every American by removing from the people their sovereign medium of exchange mandated by the Constitution itself.
The Congress on June 5, 1933, bragged of "suspending the Constitution" itself by repudiating payment of debts. This act, in conjunction with acts of the President, deluded the people into giving up their gold coin in exchange for paper intended to be irredeemable henceforward. As a congressman of the day remarked, " these acts had for their design the establishment of a new form of government." That's right, a government controlled by the central bank, the Federal Reserve bank, owned by the World Bank of London..
By creating a new status of insolvency nationwide, the congress opened wide the door for a new system of law; regulatory, commercial law by administrative agencies, bureaus, and courts at both federal and state levels. For all persons of insolvent class or, in other words, all those dealing totally without lawful money in their business affairs, there is a body of customs and usages termed law merchant, or mercantile equity, long used by merchants since the 13th century to expedite disputes in commercial contracts. The custom of merchants is largely enacted under the terms and principles of the Civil Law in the states and legislatures.
How does this effect the status of a citizen in the court? Due to the economic situation, it is assumed that all persons operate on credit and that the common Law is now where applicable. All are assumed to be " merchants in equity", (slaves-serfs-u.s.-corporate citizens - not free Americans). And thereby governed by the "general commercial law." (code) See the Modern Commercial Code is Ancient Babylonian Law here.
This brings us to the Erie R.R. v. Tompkins case of 1938. It was a landmark case because it overturned the 96 year old doctrine of Swift v. Tyson. Stated in Erie, " there is no general federal common law," meaning that there is no base of common law generic to the states. This decision was a direct ratification of HJR 192, passed five years earlier, and effects a repudiation of the basic principle of the Constitution, that the people as one created for themselves as Americans a general law and a supreme law, binding upon every government official in the United States, both state and federal. it is the birthright of every natural person who is a citizen of these United States, never to be abrogated, diminished, or " suspended" by the governmental offices it created, or by any other office created under " commercial law."
In fact, Erie implied that the " commercial law " or law merchant, was the province of the state as common law ! This travesty of decisional law is the central issue today for anyone wishing to maintain a status of citizen law, for it necessitates a statement of repudiation by the person himself. This could be called an equity disclaimer statement.
like this;
This natural person is by all intents and purposes a merchant and trader at law on a cash basis, without recourse to Standard Lawful Money, and enjoys no privilege of limited liability for the payment of debts. I deny all jurisdictions of mercantile equity brought on by HJR 192 of June 5, 1933. expressly Law Merchant, Roman Civil Law, and Admiralty Law, and demand all of my rights at the Common Law..
A statement of this sort is the beginning pleading in any case today in order to establish the Common Law status of the party in court. As mentioned above, the application of laws is the court's function. If the status of one of the parties is a bar to the action, then it must be so pleaded, by stating the facts surrounding the case, and the facts surrounding the law. The court and police will try many illegal acts of intimidation to get you to give up this approach. They want to force you to surrender to their "system" of total control.. Don't give in to them. They resort to these actions because fear is their only weapon, and they know it.. As well many in our society in the private sector, under these communist statutes and their status as a serf, which the majority of are not even aware of, will also attack and persecute you.. I know, I've been at this for thirty years..
And further more, for instance in the Kangaroo Traffic courts, the statement of status is one of the facts surrounding the case. then, a pleading that the magistrate's court lacks jurisdiction over a free sovereign sentient Person is a fact surrounding the law, for they try quasi-criminal cases upon "traffic code" where there is no crime. How can the citizen injure the state by exercising his right to travel? He cannot. (Interesting note; "Traffic, is found to be one of the definitions of "commerce." Another is " transport of persons." Therefore, it is plain to see the "traffic code" is but the regulatory " custom of merchants " for those involved in commerce. A drivers license is, then, evidence of a commercial contract with the state seal upon it! "Code" means a body of regulatory law.) These arguments with these tyrants can become a words definitions game of trivial pursuits, you'd best be good at it, one slip up and they'll pounce on you for your wallet.
A law which contemplates compelling all persons to purchase a driver's license is null and void and it violates the status of the citizen. No law can be made which would effect a change of status to detriment of rights. What, then, do we think of HJR 192? What if the state attempts to impose licensure of occupations or activities ? Of course they have done so, but;
These laws are intended to operate upon the privileged person, being a corporation or otherwise enfranchised individual. There is another fact to surround the law -- intent of the lawmakers. (lawbreakers in truth) In Idaho law, that is decisional law of Idaho's highest court, if there is a question between an application of a statute which would be unconstitutional and one which would not, the choice must be in favor of the lawful application so as to preserve the statute. Therefore, in the individual case, it is far wiser to plead that the statute is unconstitutional; For, one can easily see, the statute may have an application in some other case, making it a constitutional law. It is assumed in our law that the legislators were aware of their limits and intended no violation of the supreme law in any enactments.
To whom does a statute apply? That is the question for the court's judgment. Policemen on the street, or bureaucrats or agents cannot decide for themselves, and they should be so instructed. The courts are the forum for redress of grievance, and let the word transmit to the legislature of its ignorance.
And furthermore;
There is a distinct separation of Sovereign Constitutional American citizen and citizen of the Corporate United States. Notice the words employed in this sentence and their relationship to each other as I quote from General Rules of Pleading, R 8 page 80;
" Residence is not the equivalent of citizenship; and wherever jurisdiction is predicated upon the citizenship (alienage) of the parties, an allegation that a party is a resident of a certain state or foreign country is not a sufficient allegation of citizenship. An allegation that a party is an American citizen is insufficient, for a person may be an American citizen but not a citizen of a state. Similarly, an allegation that a person is not a citizen of the United States is an insufficient allegation of alienage." See discussion under ~ 1332 PO, 75 [1-3], [1-4].
So you have to understand this fact and where you stand in relation to that entity called the " United States" in any legal reality concerning tax codes, and other contractual agreements with the governments. In other words, substitute American for non resident alien whenever you see the term nonresident alien when talking about citizenship. You will now see your "constitutional issues" you have put before the courts (which in reality are commercial corporate tribunals) simply melt away because you have not properly brought before the tribunal the right issues. Under the Erie Doctrine, the trier of fact UCC 4-503, is making the presumption UCC 1-201 (31), that you are a " United States citizen." Wouldn't that be, " the state of the forum" that you are presumed to be inhabiting? Isn't that a "state" of corporate jurisdiction, not a geographical state jurisdiction? So the phrase nonresident alien, contains two terms and has two meanings. Nonresident, for corporate contract, therefore Alien/Stranger to that particular part of the country. See how quickly I changed from citizenship to contract using one word, "nonresident" ? The definition of "resident" in Black's Law Dictionary has many meanings also.
Read 26 USC 865 (g) over and over until your mind cannot hold any doubt.
(g) UNITED STATES RESIDENT; NONRESIDENT,---For purposes of this section --- (1) In General, --- Except as otherwise provided in this subsection --- (A) UNITED STATES RESIDENT, --- The term " United States Resident" means --- ( i ) any individual who has a tax home ( as defined in section 911 (d) (3) and in the United States, and ( ii ) any corporation, partnership, trust, or estate which is a United States person (as defined in section 7701 (a) (30))). (B) NONRESIDENT --- The term "nonresident" means any person other than a United States resident.
Are you an individual listed in 911 (d) (3)?
911 (d) DEFINITIONS AND SPECIAL RULES.-- For purposes of this section -- (3) TAX HOME,-- The term "tax home" means, with respect to any individual, such individual's home for purposes of section 162 (a) (2) ( relating to traveling expenses while away from home). An individual shall not be treated as having a tax home in a foreign country for any period which his abode is within the United States (Corporation).
How to make slaves without them being aware of it.. They volunteer for it. This UnConstitutional Union was formed after the Civil War. The few in power will never tolerate the many having power. Contracted serfs have no powers. Of course the tyrants can never really control all mens minds, some men still figure them out, and challenge them. While the majority submits. As you can see, once a Person becomes aware of this knowledge that Person then becomes a threat to the corporation, which does not want the people to know the truth, so they hide it in legal jargon, they would rather imprison or kill the knowledgeable person rather than admit to the truth..And they have in fact done both. Political prisoners have been assassinated for centuries. Corporate government is not nice.
Sovereign States or United States ?
The state in which you live has adopted the Uniform Commercial Code for its operation. The Uniform Commercial Code is contract law. The state have given up their Constitutional Sovereignty in exchange for simple administrative contract law. It has become nothing more than a corporation acting under corporate law. This being the case, the state has become a fiduciary under the Federal Government's granted privilege corporation. All "state" employees are technically federal employees beholden to the Federal Government and under the Federal jurisdiction. Obviously in the last few years we have seen state governments letting the feds boss them around, it has become more intense over the years. The state governments have also agreed to make every " resident" a legal strawman corporation under the U.S. corporation, the organic man has been replaced by the corporate serf. The fight for this sovereign versus slave status in America has been going on since the pre Civil War era. So the conspiracy to kill the Constitution, Bill of Rights, Declaration of Independence, is not a new conspiracy, it is and old one. The fight itself over the Freedom of mankind or the enslavement of mankind is ancient. Only the circumstances have changed, the fight continues to this day.
Only a nonresident alien ( to the United States or federal corporate government ) can be free as a Sovereign Individual citizen of a Free and Sovereign State in which they live and have their livelihood. The Federal Government does not have lawful jurisdiction in any State of the Union. This is why we have seen the feds issuing " guidelines" to the various states suggesting such guidelines be adopted. Or using blackmail to force the several states to adopt such guidelines. If the Federal Government had lawful jurisdiction they would not issue guidelines - they would dictate directly to each state - YOU WILL DO SO AND SO OR ELSE !!! of course another ploy is the U.N. treatises and the environmentalist movement. The ESA..etc. etc.. If you think about it, the tax paying collective has been led to believe this authority is their authority, this of course is a lie. The corporation has created a feudal society, since the collective mind cannot agree you have scattered out problems. Thus a nation of scatter brains fighting over environmental resources, people from New York thinking they are entitled to what happens in Idaho concerning some " environmental eco system or endangered species emergency" while the corporate state steals that which they fight over out from underneath them, really a pretty brilliant strategy once you discover this agenda. The people will eventually have no rights to anything, even under any pretense of rights, as they have now. We are being dictated to now. In Free America.
Continued;
The United States of America is a CROWN corporation. In 1604, a group of leading politicians, businessmen, merchants, manufacturers and bankers, met in Greenwich, then in the English county of Kent, and formed a corporation called the Virginia Company in anticipation of the imminent influx of white Europeans, mostly British at first, into the North American continent. Its main stockholder was King James I, and the original charter for the company was completed by April 10th 1606. After the original 13 American colonies won their ?independence? and an ?independent? country was formed after 1783, the Virginia Company simply changed its name to... the United States of America.
There are two USAs, or rather a USA and a usA. The united states of America with a lower case ?u? and ?5? are the lands of the various states. These lands, are still owned by THE CROWN as the head of the old Virginia Company. Then there is the United States of America, capital ?U? and ?S?, which is the 68 square miles of land west of the Potomac River on which is built the federal capital, Washington DC and the District of Columbia. It also includes the US protectorates of Guam and Puerto Rico. The United States of America is not a country... "United States" means -- (A) a federal corporation 28 USC $ 3002(15), Ch.176, It is clear that the United States...is a corporation... 534 FEDERAL SUPPLEMENT 724.
It is well settled that "United States" et. al. is a corporation, originally incorporated February 21, 1871 under the name "District of Columbia," 16 Stat. 419 Chap. 62 (reorganized June 11, 1878); a bankrupt organization per House Joint Resolution 192 of June 5, 1933, Senate Report 93-549m and Executive Orders 6072, 6102, 6111, and 6246."
One needs to look at the origins of copyright law to see under what laws the corporation of United States was formed, hint: it will take you back to Britain. As well, the inferior negotiating status of America during the Paris Treaty shows that it was not ever considered to be a country like the United Kingdom.
Big Brother in the form of an increasingly powerful government and in an increasingly powerful private sector will pile the records high with reasons why privacy should give way to national security, to law and order, to efficiency of operation, to scientific advancement and the like. - William O. Douglas (1898-1980), U. S. Supreme Court Justice.
And Furthmore ;
Are you a human being ? Or are you a corporation ? A corporation under contract with the u.s. corporation, thus making you their vassel, you know, that's a slave.
"persons" are defined in law dictionaries as "corporations" and not men/women of flesh and blood. I have oft repeated that it is vital to separate the two, particularly if you transgress a statute and end up in a court-room.
Roger decided to not pay his council tax and see where it all ended up. The result is pretty stupendous. He got a judge to agree that he Roger Hayes, the man, was not MR ROGER HAYES, a corporation defined in law.
What does it all mean? In essence, it means that every time you bend a statute, you, the flesh and blood human, is not responsible. Your legal fiction is. I imagine that your legal fiction, like mine, has no money. So the liability for paying your council tax, a parking fine, a speeding fine, your income tax, or corporation tax, falls on your legal fiction, not you, the human.
Which is pretty cool. Because I have been saying that for the last few years. Most people have assumed I am a Mental.
And Furthermore :
The Fourteenth Amendment 1868;
Since federalism must function within the jurisdiction of Civil Law, (Not the Constitutional Common law) and a federal government ( The Provincial Roman Empire) must have SUBJECTS in order to exist and flourish, a subject population (slaves under contract) had to be created in the United States. Those sovereign ( not slaves ) individuals running about, minding their own business, had somehow, to be induced (tricked) to come aboard the federal ship-of-state. One of the foremost preliminary steps in accomplishing this objective was the Fourteenth Amendment. (The red communists 14th amendment ) added to the Constitution of the United States of America. Proposed by resolution on June 13th, 1866; "ratified" July 9, 1868; ( Under Reconstruction Duress ) " certified" July 29, 1868, this Amendment stated;
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, AND SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION THEREOF, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside...
Article IV, Section 2, of the " National " Constitution acknowledges only State citizenship. Now comes the Fourteenth Amendment, stated in a way that conceals its real consequences. Those consequences are; If you are born or naturalized in the United States, you can have United States citizenship if you will SUBJECT yourself to the jurisdiction of the United States federal government!
The distinction between citizenship of the United States and citizenship of a State is here clearly recognized and established.
" Not only may a man be a citizen of the United States without being a citizen of a State, but an important element is necessary to convert the former into the latter. He must reside within the State to make him a citizen of it, but it is only necessary that he should be born or naturalized in the United States to be a citizen of the Union. It is quite clear, then, that there is a citizenship of the United States, and a citizenship of a State, which are distinct from each other, and which depend upon different characteristics or circumstances in the individual." ---Slaughter House Cases, 16 Wall. 36, 74 ( 1873). --
Did you get that ? There be two types of legal status, one is Corporate Subject Slave Status. And the other, which I prefer, is the Sovereign Free of Corporate contracts Status. Both are legal. To attempt to live under the Sovereign Common Law Status as the Founders of our Constitutional Bill of Rights and our Declaration of Independence, will cause you to be persecuted, hated upon, mocked, attacked, by the slaves under contract with the federal slave massa. The Feds do have a nice system, their slaves feel free, even if they are not truly free, and their slaves grumble about how much massa steals out their pockets. The whole debacle is really funny.. But shush now, if you tell the slave about his slave status he'll ignore you, call you whacked, etc.. etc..
" While the amendment did not create a national citizenship it has the effect of making that citizenship "paramount and dominant" instead of "derivative and dependent" upon State citizenship. " ----Colgate v. Harvey, 296 U.S. 404, 427 (1935).
So, how does a Sovereign individual become a subject to the jurisdiction of the federal massa government ? One way is to violate a law that the government is authorized, and granted jurisdiction, to prosecute (Treason, counterfeiting and crimes against the Law of Nations); another way is to be in its employ; the third way, least known and understood by trusting inhabitants of the various states, is applying for its privileges and/or partaking of its benefits. Entering into contractual agreement with its agency.
THE PHRASE "SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION" RELATES TO TIME OF BIRTH, and one not owing ALLEGIANCE AT BIRTH cannot become a citizen save by subsequent naturalization, individually or collectively. The words do not mean merely geographical location, but "COMPLETELY SUBJECT TO THE POLITICAL JURISDICTION." {---Elk v. Wilkens, 112, U.S. 94, 102 (1884), holding that an Indian born within the United States in a recognized tribe, although he willingly may surrender his tribal relations, if that SURRENDER is not accepted by the United States, he does not become a citizen of the United States by virtue of the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment.---}
With incredible success, the federal massa subsequently played their tune, " Something for Nothing" until the shipmates were firmly bound to the ship by their feudal contractual bonds. Those bonds can be broken, but it is a tough process, and one best not err along the way, or one must start over. In other words, it is very hard work. I don't know of many slaves who are willing to go the distance to truly be free of this Babylonian group of Pied Pipers ruling this country.
Of course it would be easy to back up this tid bit of information with various Congressional Globes, Annals and Records of Congress, toss in several Court cases, a few " Ratified " Amendment's to the Constitution, etc. etc.. But then the blog would be about 12 miles long and non entertaining. Besides, serfs suffer from cognitive dissonance and attention Deficit Disorder..
Welcome to the u.s.federal corporate government slave plantation.
And furthermore:
Act alleging crime is Bill of Attainder
The parking ticket, or any type of issued citation or complaint is issued out of the mind and hand of the Executive Branch of City, County, or State Government and imposes a predetermined punishment on persons in the form of a fine or penalty without any Judicial process or trial. A Bill of Attainder is defined as ; " Legislative acts, no matter what their form, that apply to persons in such a way as to inflict punishment on them without a judicial trial is nothing more than a Bill of Attainder" ( pains and penalties). U.S. vs Brown, 381 U.S. 437, 448-49. U.S. vs Lovett, 328 U.S. 303, 315.
" A special act of the legislature which inflicts a punishment less than death upon persons supposed to be guilty...without any conviction in the ordinary course of judicial proceedings." 2 Wood. Lect. 625. " The clause in the constitution prohibiting bills of attainder includes bills of pains and penalties." Story Const. Sec. 1338; Hare Am. Const. L. 549; Cummings v. Missouri, 4 Wall. 323; Fletcher v. Peck, 6 Cran. 138.
The issue of what is a bill of attainder and of pains and penalties was well settled in the case of Cummings v. Missouri where the United States Supreme Court stated; " The theory upon which our political institutions rest is, that all men have certain inalienable rights -- that among those are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; and that in the pursuit of happiness all avocations, all honors, all positions, are alike open to every one, and that in the protection of these rights all men are equal before the law. Any deprivation or suspension of any of these rights for past conduct is punishment, and can be in no way otherwise defined." Cummings v. Missouri, supra, p. 321-2.
" A bill of attainder is a legislative act which inflicts punishment without judicial trial." " If the punishment be less than death, the act is termed a bill of pains and penalties. Within the meaning of the Constitution, bills of attainder include bill of pains and penalties. In these cases, the legislative body, in addition to its legitimate functions, exercises the powers and office of judge; it assumes, in the language of the textbooks, judicial magistracy; it pronounces upon the guilt of the proofs produced, whether conformable to the rules of evidence or otherwise, and fixes the degree of punishment in accordance with its own notions of the enormity of the offense." Cummings, supra, p. 323.
Obviously the parking ticket or any type of issued citation or complaint meet all of the criteria elaborated upon by the Supreme Court. These types of ticketed regulations allows City, County, or State Government to exercise the powers and office of judge (individual has been convicted by them and fined), pronounce guilt without trial ( guilt announced by demand for payment of fine which can transpire after conviction of guilty), determine proof (proof of guilt has been predetermined to be the person to whom the contractual agreement was with, drivers license, license plates, or other). and fix punishment ( as indicated on the citation).
The high Court went on to say; " Bills of this sort,....have been most usually passed....in...periods, in which all nations are most liable ( as well the free as the enslaved ). to forget their duties, and to trample upon the rights and liberties of others." Cummings, Supra. The Supreme Court reiterated the validity of the Cummings case in U.S. vs. Lovett. In the Lovett case they also referred to Ex Parte Garland, 4 Wall 333, in which they stated that these types of bills...." stand for the proposition that legislative acts no matter what their form, that apply either to named individuals or to easily ascertainable members of a group in such a way as to inflict punishment on them without a judicial trial are bills of attainder prohibited by the Constitution. " United States v. Lovett, 328, U.S. 303, 315. Continuing in the same case they said ; " The Constitution outlaws this entire category of punitive measures. The amount of punishment is immaterial to the classification of a challenged statute. But punishment is a prerequisite. " Punishment presupposes an offense, not necessarily an act previously declared criminal, but an act for which retribution is exacted." U.S. v. Lovett, supra, p. 324; Also see Garner v. Los Angeles Board, 341 U.S. 716; and Christie v. Lueth, 61 N.W. 2d 338, 341. These type of acts clearly fall within the scope of Constitutional prohibition, United States Constitution, Article 1, Section 9, Clause 3; and Article 1, Section 10 states; " No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto law shall be passed." (emphasis mine).
And; " No State shall...pass any Bill of Attainder..." On the face of these types of ticketed regulations of City, County, or State Government complaints it plainly states; " The fine for this violation is $ if paid before the court date. You may pay the clerk of the court. Delinquencies are subject to additional penalties." The City, County, or State Government is issuing complaints determining guilt of individuals, and imposing punishments in the form of a fine all without due process and judicial trial. Prima facia proof of this fact is in the wording of the alleged citation. On the face of the citation it states; " the fine for this violation is..." This statement amounts to a blatant confession that the City, County, or State Government has charged the individual, found him guilty, and is requiring the individual to pay a specific dollar amount, all without the benefit of due process and Judicial trial. From the wording " Delinquencies are subject to additional penalties." it is obvious that guilt has further predetermined. Since guilt has been predetermined, and when some individual does not pay the fine ( punishment) entered on the face of the complaint, that person will further be subjected to additional punishment for his predetermined guilt through delinquency charges. This demand of and imposition of a delinquency charge for an unproven offense is further prima facie evidence of predetermined guilt after filing the charge, predetermining guilt, and imposing of a fine does not negate the invalid status of the enactment creating the offense. As applied to Free and natural Persons it is plainly a Bill of Attainder ( Bill of Pains and Penalties) and violates the law of the land..
As you read this series of Free Natural Persons compared to serf contractual persons, you must know these judges and their police in Idaho, love us Free Natural Persons with our heads full of knowledge very much.. ha ha.. NOT !
The full significance of the clause " law of the land " is said to be statutes which would deprive a citizen of the rights of a person or property without a regular trial according to the course and usage of the common law would not be the law of the land. Hoke v. Hendrickson, 15 N.C. 15, 25. " By law of the land is more clearly intended the general law, a law which hears before it condemns ; which proceeds upon inquiry, and renders judgment only after trial. The meaning is that every citizen shall hold his life, liberty, property and immunities, under the protection of the general rules which govern our society. Everything which may pass under the form of enactment is not, therefore to be considered the law of the land." ( Emphasis mine) Dartmouth College Case, 4 Wheat 518..
The enactment authorizing such summary proceedings by the City, County, or State Government is clearly applied to Natural persons in such a way as to inflict punishment on them without judicial trial and is therefore unconstitutional bill of pains and penalties as applied to Natural Persons. Of course if you pay this Roman Bill of Attainder then is an act of confession. There can no doubt that this act can and does pertain to those artificial subjects and members who are wards or creations of the City, County, or State Government via contractual enslavement documents or licensure, in those cases it is not unconstitutional. Government has the right to control, limit, restrict, and regulate the actions of those artificial subjects they create, and therefore, those artificial persons are legal subjects of City, County, or State Government bills of attainder. What they did not tell you, of course are the terms of their contractual agreements, they just demand you contract with them. To con in this fashion is Fraud. They defrauded the artificial person of his Free Sovereign Rights under Natural law. THE CONTRACTED SERF waived his NATURAL rights.
And furthermore;
Rights of a freeman
Article 1, Section 3, of the Idaho State Constitution states; " The state of Idaho is an inseparable part of the American Union, and the Constitution of the United States is the Supreme law of the land."
Other State Constitutions also make references concerning the information in the above paragraph. The Constitution of the United States states; " This Constitution...shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby..."
There can be no doubt that all judges are bound by the Constitution of the United States which is a part of the Common law, which nullifies any legislative law or statute that violates the rights of a Sovereign Freeman.
In this country The Natural Rights of the Individual organic man precede the government or the establishment of states, which is an ancient maxim of law. Rights are acknowledged above government or they cease to be Rights and become privileges authorized by the government or state. Unfortunately since the Wilson Administration the American people have, unknownst to themselves surrendered their Organic Natural Sovereignty via contractual agreements using deceptions, government using slight of hand inserted itself between God and Man, thus attempting to become as a god. The drivers license contract, the checking and savings contract, the Socialist Security Number contract, the W-4 W-2 1099 contracts.. The license plates on the vehicle contract, the marriage license contract, all contracts make you a slave to the state. They hand you and unConstitutional Bill Attainder contract, thus you enter the Admiralty Maritime Jurisdiction of the Magistrate Merchant And Equity law Court and you pay up because you are a slave.
The rights governing contracts, money, appearance, pleading, and pleas are more ancient than the history of this country and were well established in the early days of American Jurisprudence. It has been the arbitrary rule making on the part of government officials at work expediting the judicial system into Streamlined Courts of Equity and chancery proceedings, which have been abrogating Free and natural Citizens Rights and Freedoms. " Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making legislation which would abrogate them." -- Miranda V Arizona, 384, US 436, 491.
" This Person hereby lays claim to the absolute inalienable rights of contract, freedom, and liberty - - that is, the claim of unrestricted action except so far as to claim of others necessitates restriction - - and the right to free locomotion... There is a monstrous difference in restricting actions of locomotion and prohibiting and commanding actions, or the lack of, and punishing penalty, fines, and imprisonment of persons who fail to comply when the action committed by the Person has not, in fact, caused any loss or damage of another;s life, liberty, or property as opposed to those classes of crimes where anothers life, liberty, or Property has been damaged or lost. Restriction of various functions on certain classes of commercial travelers and other juristic persons may be necessary, however, penal action is not. A penal action is nothing more than an action or information brought by an " agent of the king" (policeman) and in which the penalty goes to the " king" (government). --Bouvier Law Dictionary, P. 2551.
Any Freeman who claims his rights cannot be forced to comply with penal offenses. Under the Common Law there can be no constructive offenses. United States V. Lacher, 134 US 624; Todd V. United States, 158 US 282. It should be understood that a constructive offense is nothing more than an act which may or may not be performed; the doing that which a penal law forbids to be done or omitting to do what it commands.
Penal statutes are essentially those actions which impose a penalty or punishment arbitrarily extracted for some act or commission thereof on the part of some person. (Blacks Law Dictionary, 5th Ed., P. 1019) Such statutes operate to compel a performance ( Black, P 1020) and inflict a punishment by statute for its violation. (Strathairly, 124 US 571)
" In any appearance of this Free and Natural Citizen, it must be noted that no jurisdiction other than the Common law will be recognized and executive chancery is specifically denied. This denial includes state codes that are in violation of the rights of man, and in this case a code demanding a specific performance commanding that a certain thing can or cannot be done, making said statute an unconstitutional statute."Constitutional and legal rights are protected by the law, by the Constitution; but if government does not create the idea of right or original rights, it acknowledges them; just as government does not create property or values and money, it regulates them. If it were otherwise, the question would present itself, whence does government come ? Whence does it derive its own right to create rights ? By compact ? But whence did the contracting parties derive their right to create a government that is to make rights? We would be consistently led to adopt the idea of a government by just divinum; that is, a government deriving its authority to introduce and establish rights ( bestowed on it in particular) from a source wholly separate from human society and the ethical character of man, in the same manner in which we acknowledge revelation to come from a source not human." -- Bouvier, P. 2961
The powers of our government are supposed to be severely limited and this has been best presented by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in 1803; " The powers of the legislature are defined and limited; and those limits may not be mistaken, or forgotten, the constitution is written. To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing, if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained ? The distinction between a government with limited and unlimited powers is abolished, if those limits do not confine the persons on whom they are imposed, and if acts prohibited and the acts allowed are of equal obligation. It is a proposition too plain to be contested that the constitution controls any legislative act repugnant to it; or, that the legislature may alter the constitution by any ordinary act. " Between these alternatives there is no middle ground. The Constitution is either a superior paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means, or it is on a level with ordinary legislative acts, and, like other acts, is alterable when the legislature shall please to alter it. " If the former part of the alternative be true, then a legislative act contrary to the constitution, is not law; if the latter part be true, then written constitutions are absurd attempts, on the part of the people, to limit power in its own nature illimitable. " If then the courts are to regard the constitution, and the constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the legislature, the constitution, and not such ordinary acts must govern the case to which both apply. " 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 his government - - if it is closed upon him, and cannot be inspected by him? " If such to be the real state of things, this is worse than solemn mockery. To prescribe, or to take this oath, becomes equally a crime. " It is also not entirely unworthy of observation, that in declaring what shall be the supreme law of the land, the constitution itself is first mentioned; and not the laws of the United States generally, but those only which shall be made in pursuance of the constitution, have that rank." " Thus, the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United states confirms and strengthens the principles, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution is void; and that courts as well as other departments, are bound by the instrument." --Marbury V. Madison, 1C. 137, 176-179 In the United States all three branches of government, state or national, are granted " LIMITED" powers. These powers are granted by " THE PEOPLE. " The people are, in fact, individuals. The PEOPLE are principals and authorize agency to the three branches of government. The concept of limited powers of government establishes the fact that the agent is not granted sufficient power in any case to invert the relationship so as to make the individual an agent and the state his principal. Such an inversion would prohibit acts of " FREE AGENCY " which are privy to a principal and are outside the discretion of an agent. Since our government is a government of self governing individuals, the individuals have, and must have, the SOVEREIGN powers..
If the people, as principals, do not possess the Sovereign powers, they possess no power from which they can convey a limited portion to their agents, the government, and so any government that would act presumably under the constitution and convert people from the principals and sovereigns to agents is, infact, a pretender, a government of pretense, because it does not derive its authority from the people. Therefore, the People would be reduced to agents and are no longer the source of authority. Such a government has destroyed it's source of power through usurpation; it has become a principal in violation of it's creator's interests. Government is deriving it's authority from some source outside the People in violation of the operation of a Constitutional Republican form of government and, therefore, inverts the relationship of the individual, principal, and the state, agent. This violates the " limited powers " Doctrine. The contractual agreements you make with government changes the position of authority. They do not tell you this up front. They just tell you must be under their contracts.
The controlling principle in the Common Law is that no man may order the life, actions, and decisions of another man. Each individual being answerable to his Creator for his actions and their consequences, must have the right to choose the acts. The Common Law provides protection guaranteeing man's independent action in all ways, unless there is a responsible swearing to an allegation that a man, individual, sovereign person, is the probable cause of damage to anothers property, injury to anothers Person, or infringement on anothers Rights. The oath attending a swearing of charges protects the accused by making the Plaintiff answerable to perjury if falsely brought. Our heritage, the Common Law, requires no performance of the individual. The Common Law demands and secures restitution and punishment for wrongs.
Treaties and Statutes are not law. Contracts impaired by trickery and treachery, built upon fraud, since the people were not made aware of that sovereignty they lost in the bargain of contracting with the Feds and the States and trading authority for state strawman corporate slave status. The Free and Natural Organic Person has the inalienable right to contract with anyone this person pleases, and the government can pass no law " impairing " the obligation of contracts. State granted privileges to juristic persons have their source in the limited powers by granted by the natural individuals of the state. The licensing asks for more; for some reason it asks for a signature, and that is contractual and constitutes a presumed voluntary waiver of Common Law process, a person has unknowingly given up constitutional Freedoms, Natural Organic individual Sovereignty, and become a serf. Thus the person has volunteered to be entered into police state courts of chancery. Licensing requires such information which should be considered private, which the licensing agents do not keep private. The State cannot compel Sovereign Persons to waive their right to privacy. The operation of licensing statutes requires all of these private things which it cannot compel a Free and Natural Citizen ( Freeman) to provide, whether or not it is a statute. Cited as proper authority is the following;
" An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed." Norton v. Shelby County p. 442 " The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and the name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of enactment, an unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed." 16 Am. Jur. 2nd 177.
About now, one should be realizing what has been done to citizens of America.. They have been " legally " enslaved using deceptions. Does this not prove the fact that the state has conspired against the Constitution and the Sovereign Individuals of this country. They have resorted to using the gun to force us into contractual agreements with them. They have used force against us.
1) " Permission to do something which would otherwise be illegal," and 2) " A grant to use property in which one possesses no estate."
And Furthermore;
Rights of a Sovereign
Each law relating to the anti Constitutional police power of a state involves the question. First, is there a threatened danger ? Second, does the regulation involve a constitutional right ? Third, is the regulation reasonable ? 1. First, is there a threatened danger ? Here is the question needs to be asked, just what is a threatened danger ? Can there be a danger in simply carrying a firearm ? Is it a threat to carry a flask of nitro? Is it a threat to have blasting caps in one's possession ? Is it a threat to drive an automobile or fly a plane ? Is it a threat to be a Karate expert ? Is it a threat to carry a long pointed and sharpened pencil ? What kills more people per year, --- is it the medical community, how about cancer, from FDA approved foods polluted with toxic chemicals, how about automobile wrecks ? Wars ? Abortions ? All of those each alone kill more Americans than guns do. In fact auto wrecks kill more Americans per year than the war in Nam killed American soldiers in ten years.. What then is a threatened danger to our society ? Is it a mad husband or wife ? 2. Second, does the regulation involve a constitutional right ? The state possesses the police power to protect the public health, morals, and safety by the legislation appropriate to that end which does not encroach upon the rights guaranteed by the national constitution. --Missouri K and T Ry. Co. v. Haber, 169 U.S. 628. Rights founded in law or statute are mere legal rights. However, inalienable rights are not granted by government through codes or statutes and can only inhere in and exist between moral beings. The People of a country organize the government and give government its powers, and in the case of the United States of America, the people reserved for themselves all inalienable Rights and so declared them through the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights, Rights then, proceed government or the establishment of states. Rights are acknowledged above government and their states, which is better expressed by the maxim " Ne ex regula jus sumatur, sed ex jurequod est, regula fiat." Both legal rights and inalienable rights are protected by the Constitution of the United States and statutory laws enacted by Congress or legislative bodies, however, government does not create the idea of rights or original rights, it simply acknowledges them.
Inalienable Rights then, are claims of the people that inhere in the very nature of man himself. Rights can only inhere in and exist between moral beings, not between government and man, nor government and government. Government can give Civil rights, or what are commonly referred to as privileges, to any entity it regulates or creates as in the case of corporations, but since government is not a moral body it cannot give that which it does not itself possess, and government possesses no inalienable rights.
" To secure the Rights of the People, the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution of the United States, and the Bill of Rights were penned and is the Supreme Law of the land. " The constitution is either a superior paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means, or it is on a level with ordinary legislative acts, and like other acts, is alterable when the legislature shall please to alter it. If then the courts are to regard the constitution, and the constitution is superior to any ordinary legislation, the constitution, and not such ordinary act govern the case to which they both apply. Thus, the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution is void; and that courts as well as other departments (USFWS-ESA-USFS-CIA-FBI-NSA-U.N. - Agenda 21 - Sustainable Development - etc. etc. etc.) are bound by the instrument." Marbury v. Madison 1 C 137, 176-179. It is also clear that no state Constitution can espouse anything that would be in contravention with the Federal Constitution. If any State Constitution violates the principles stated in the Federal Constitution, that provision or statement is null and void from its inception as though it had never existed as; An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed...Norton v Shelby, p. 442.
Of course Madison is referring to the period between 1787-1868.. That Constitutional Law fell in 1868..That is where men fail to recognize what has taken place..
The Republic of these Protestant United States of America which lasted between 1787-1868, was replaced by the anti Declaration of Independence, anti Constitutional Roman Civil Law which we see in this corporate Jesuit Provincial Empire far removed from John Lockes Treatise on Freedom, since 1868 onwards. It is quite clear why the Jesuit Order found themselves EXPELLED from 83 Nations in the last 500 years, because those peoples of those nations still had real leaders, and courage, and the mental fortitude to point to and place blame where blame was due and remove those infiltrating Saboteurs, obviously more people per capita realized the truth than is the case today, that sadly is our downfall. The Vatican, the U.N., the federal corporate Jesuit provincial government laying siege to its fifty provinces and especially punishing the most independent thinking western rural populations.. Using their Aldobrandini (Satan) UNICEP think tanks, their U.N. and their Club of Romes environmentalist fraud movement destroying what we westerners built up over the last century. So without returning to a true Republic of these Protestant United States of America which lasted between 1787-1868, and instead still believing in the system described above which has replaced it, thinking we white men believing in true freedom shall repair and take control of a system of government not of the founders is a fools game at best. The enemy is in 100% control of the tea party movement, and this new Republican House many very foolish conservatives are putting their faith into.. It's still a rattle snake, and you guys still missed stomping it on its head and merely cut off its rattlers.. Best of luck to ya because you are getting burned next..The real wolves, jackals, walk upright on their hind legs, smile and lie.. We need to make it 84 nations and now.
" An unconstitutional law is void, and is as no law. An offense created by it is not a crime. A conviction under it is merely erroneous, but is illegal or void, and cannot be legal cause of imprisonment. " Ex Parte Siebold, U.S. page 376
United Nations Treaties included !
During the learning process over the years, figuring this out, I did argue with Judges concerning these matters.. One Judge was so impressed with my self taught law and knowledge, we sat down in private and he pointed me in the direction of the real problem. I explained it in a nut shell above..
I also did not hear one new congressional winning candidate say any thing against United Nations Treatises, Agenda 21.. Nor did any of them express the idea of returning to the rule of law as expressed by the Founders of this Nation, which would be the 1787-1868 real version of law.In fact the Paul camp said the Agenda 21 Sustainable Development was a non issue and was not a threat to private property rights, nor interfering in constitutional law.. Call the new congressman and ask him yourself..
Keep dreaming...
June 13, 1967 H7161 THE 14TH AMENDMENT -
June 13, 1967 H7161 THE 14TH AMENDMENT -
The Fourteenth Amendment has been used by the U.S. Supreme court for several years as a club to beat the states into submission. There is unassailable evidence that the amendment was not lawfully ratified. This evidence was presented by Justice Ellett in Dyett v. Turner and on the floor of the House of Representatives. Come on, do you mean to tell me you very intelligent "Americans" never double checked anything you have been taught ? Hell, I have never lost this debate ever.. Stay blind and asleep, nothing will get better.
June 13, 1967 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.
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
makeany 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 have 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 22nd31 and July 25th, 1861,33 that the Civil War forced
bydisunionists 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,
tranquillity, 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 unconstitutionality's:
``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, he
pointed out various unconstitutionality's as follows:
``The veto of the original bill of the 2d 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 tow
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 isneedless 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 when 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 Legislature 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 mad 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 thing 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 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 fact 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
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'' is 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 @ 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.
The Fourteenth Amendment has been used by the U.S. Supreme court for several years as a club to beat the states into submission. There is unassailable evidence that the amendment was not lawfully ratified. This evidence was presented by Justice Ellett in Dyett v. Turner and on the floor of the House of Representatives. Come on, do you mean to tell me you very intelligent "Americans" never double checked anything you have been taught ? Hell, I have never lost this debate ever.. Stay blind and asleep, nothing will get better.
June 13, 1967 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.
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
makeany 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 have 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 22nd31 and July 25th, 1861,33 that the Civil War forced
bydisunionists 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,
tranquillity, 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 unconstitutionality's:
``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, he
pointed out various unconstitutionality's as follows:
``The veto of the original bill of the 2d 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 tow
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 isneedless 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 when 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 Legislature 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 mad 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 thing 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 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 fact 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
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'' is 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 @ 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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)