• Same story, different day...........year ie more of the same fiat floods the world
  • There are no markets
  • "Spreading the ideas of freedom loving people on matters regarding high finance, politics, constructionist Constitution, and mental masturbation of all types"

Making the 14th Amendment illegal: June 13, 1967 House Record


New Member
Mar 30, 2010
Near Miami
This is a Congressional Record of a House speech given by Congressman Rarick on June 13, 1967 in order to repeal the 14th Amendment.


June 13, 1967 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD HOUSE, Page 15641


Mr. PRYOR: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Louisiana
[Mr. Rarick] may extend his remarks at this point in the RECORD and include
extraneous matter.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from

There was no objection.

Mr. RARICK: Mr. Speaker, arrogantly ignoring clearcut 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 14thamendment 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—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

But interestingly enough, the 14thamendment—whether ratified or not—was but the
expression of emotional outpouring of public sentiment following the War Between the
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 divide 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 Leander 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 1, 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

said southern States 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 the 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, on
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 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 itself 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 he
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; and

(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 State Senate and House of
Congress and to the Louisiana Congressional delegation, is copy hereof to be
published in the Congressional Record,

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

C. 0. Aycock,
Lieutenant Governor and President o/ the Senate.
Last edited:


New Member
Mar 30, 2010
Near Miami

By Judge Leander H. Perez

The purported Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution 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 as required by Article I, Section 3, and Article V of the U.S.

2. The Joint Resolution was not submitted to the President for his approval as required by
Article 1, Section 5 of the U.S. Constitution.

3. The proposed Fourteenth Amendment was rejected by more than one fourth of all the
states in the Union, and it was never ratified by three fourths of all the states in the Union
as required by Article V, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution.


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 twenty-three 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

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

“The said proposed amendment not having yet received the assent of 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, or 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 house.”

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

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

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.”

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.

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 defined, the assemblage,
at the capital, 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.

The Florida Legislature, by Resolution on 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.

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

Eleven of the Southern States, including South Carolina, are deprived of
their representation in Congress. Although their Senators and
Representatives have been duly elected and have presented themselves
for the purpose of taking their seats, their credentials have, in most
instances, been laid upon the table without being read, or have been
referred to a committee, who have failed to make any report on the subject.

In short, Congress has refused to exercise its Constitutional functions, and
decide either upon the election, the return, or the qualification of these
selected by the States and people to represent us. Some of the Senators
and Representatives from the Southern States were prepared to take the
test oath, but even these have been persistently ignored, and kept out of
the seats to which they were entitled under the Constitution and laws.
Hence this amendment has not been proposed by “two thirds of both
Houses” of a legally constituted Congress, and is not, Constitutionally or
legitimately, before a single Legislature for ratification.

The North Carolina Legislature, by Resolution on December 6, 1866, protested as

“The Federal Constitution declares in substance, that Congress shall
consist of a House of Representatives, 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

“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


Article I, Section 7 of the United States Constitution provides that not only every bill
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 Fourteenth Amendment (11) 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.
Therefore the Joint Resolution did not take effect.


1. Pretermitting the ineffectiveness of said Resolution, as demonstrated above, fifteen
states out of the then thirty-seven states of the Union rejected the proposed Fourteenth
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 Fourteenth Amendment on October 27, 1866.(12)
Georgia rejected it on November 9, 1866.(13)
Florida rejected it on December 6, 1866.(14)
Alabama rejected it on December 7, 1866.(15)
Arkansas rejected it on December 17, 1866.(16)
North Carolina rejected it on December 17, 1866.(17)
South Carolina rejected it on December 20, 1866.(18)
Kentucky rejected it on January 8, 1867.(19)
Virginia rejected it on January 9, 1867.(20)
Louisiana rejected it on February 6, 1867.(21)
Delaware rejected it on February 7, 1867.(22)
Maryland rejected it on March 23, 1867.(23)
Mississippi rejected it on January 31, 1868.(24)
Ohio rejected it on January 15, 1868.(25)
New Jersey rejected it on March 24, 1868.(26)

There is no question that all of the Southern states which rejected the Fourteenth
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

President Andrew Johnson in his veto message of March 2, 1867, pointed out:

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. (27)

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

2. The Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution was proposed by Joint
Resolution of Congress (28) 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 Thirteenth Amendment was ratified
by twenty-seven states of the then thirty-six states of the Union, including the Southern
states of Virginia, Louisiana, Arkansas, South Carolina, North Carolina, Alabama, and

This is shown by the Proclamation of the Secretary of State on December 18,
1865. (29) Without the votes of these seven Southern state Legislatures the Thirteenth
Amendment would have failed. There can be no doubt but that the ratification by these
seven Southern states of the Thirteenth 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.(30)

On August 20, 1866, President Johnson issued another proclamation (31) pointing out the
fact that the Senate and House of Representatives had adopted identical Resolutions on
July 22 (32) and July 25,1861, (33) that the Civil War forced by disunionists of the
Southern states, was not waged for the purpose of conquest or to overthrow the rights and
established institutions of those states, but to defend and maintain the supremacy of the
Constitution and to preserve the Union with all the equality and rights of the several
states unimpaired, and that as soon as these objects were accomplished, the war ought to
cease. The President's proclamation on April 2, 1866 (34) declared that the insurrection in
the other Southern states, except Texas, no longer existed. On August 20, 1866, the
President proclaimed that the insurrection in the state of Texas had been completely

He continued:

And I do further proclaim that the said insurrection is at an end, and
that peace, order, tranquility, and civil authority now exist, in and
throughout the whole of the United States of America. (35)

4. When the state of Louisiana rejected the Fourteenth Amendment on February 6, 1867,
making it the 10th state to have rejected the same, or more than one fourth of the total
number of thirty-six states of the Union as of that date. Because this left less than three
fourths of the states to ratify the Fourteenth Amendment, it 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 the constitutional requirement.

5. Faced with the positive failure of ratification of the Fourteenth 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. The third of said
Acts (36) was designed to illegally remove with “Military force” the lawfully constituted
state Legislatures of the ten 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, he pointed
out these unconstitutionalities:

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

In all these States there are existing constitutions, framed in the
accustomed way by the people. Congress, however, declares that these
constitutions are not “loyal and republican” and requires the people to
form them anew. What, then, in the opinion of Congress, is necessary to
make the constitution of a State “loyal and republican”? The original act
answers this question: “It is universal negro suffrage” -- a question which
the federal Constitution leaves exclusively to the States themselves.

All this legislative machinery of martial law, military coercion, and political
disfranchisement is avowedly for that purpose and none other. The
existing constitutions of the ten States, conform to the acknowledged
standards of loyalty and republicanism. Indeed, if there are degrees in
republican forms of government, their constitutions are more republican
now, than when these States -- four of which were members of the
original thirteen -- first became members of the Union.(37)

In President Johnson's veto message regarding the Reconstruction Act of July 19, 1867,
he pointed out various unconstitutionalities 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 an be distracted. The last
act on this subject was passed July 23, 1866, by which every one of these
ten States was arranged into districts and circuits.

They have been called upon by Congress to act through their legislatures
upon at least two amendments to the Constitution of the United States. As
States they have ratified one amendment, which required the vote of twenty-
seven States of the thirty-six then composing the Union. When the requisite
twenty-seven votes were given in favor of that amendment, it was
proclaimed to be 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 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 distracted, 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 comment their consideration to the
deliberate judgment of Congress.

(And now to the Court.) Within a period of 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 be
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
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.(38)

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 constitutionality.
In Mississippi v. President Andrew Johnson,(4 Wall. 475-502)(39) 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 could not be
adjoined because for the Judicial Department of the government to attempt to enforce the
performance of the duties of 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 it granted the injunction against the enforcement of the Reconstruction Acts, and if the President refused obedience, it was needless to observe that the Court was 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. (40)

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

In another case, ex parte William H. McCradle,(7 Wall. 506-515) (41) 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 regarding the
decision to be made, Congress passed an emergency act, (42) 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 Citizen was
held without benefit of writ of habeas corpus, in violation of Article I, Section 9 of the
U.S. Constitution. 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 suppress our action,
and relieve us from responsibility.

I am not willing to be a partaker of the eulogy or opprobrium that may follow.
I can only say... I am ashamed that such opprobrium should be cast upon
the court and that it cannot be refuted. The ten states were organized into
Military Districts under the unconstitutional Reconstruction Acts, their lawfully
constituted Legislatures were illegally removed by “military force,” and 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.(43)
• North Carolina on July 2, 1868.(44)
• Florida on June 9, 1868.(45)
• Louisiana on July 9, 1868.(46)
• South Carolina on July 9, 1868.(47)
• Alabama on July 13, 1868.(48)
• Georgia on July 21, 1868.(49)

6. Of the above seven 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
ratifications, the 13th Amendment could not and would not have been ratified because
said six states made a total of twenty-seven out of thirty-six 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 reestablished
under a Proclamation issued by President Abraham Lincoln dated December 8, 1863.
(50) The government of North Carolina had been re-established under a Proclamation
issued by President Andrew Johnson dated May 29, 1865.(51) The government of
Georgia had been re-established under a Proclamation issued by President Johnson dated

June 17, 1865.(52) The government of Alabama had been re-established under a
Proclamation issued by President Johnson dated June 21, 1865.(53) The government of
South Carolina had been re-established under a Proclamation issued by President Johnson
dated June 30, 1865.(54)

These three “Reconstruction Acts” under which the above state Legislatures were
illegally removed and unlawful rump, or 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 Fourteenth Amendment by said six Southern puppet Legislatures of Arkansas,
North Carolina, Louisiana, South Carolina, Alabama, and Georgia.

Those Reconstruction Acts of Congress and all acts and things unlawfully done
thereunder were in violation of Article IV, Section 4 of the United States Constitution,
which required the United States to guarantee a republican form of government. They
violated Article 1, 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, ten states were deprived of having two Senators, or equal suffrage in the

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.(55) Promptly on July 21, 1868, a Joint Resolution was adopted by the Senate and
House of Representatives declaring that three fourths of the several states of the Union
had indeed ratified the 14th Amendment.(56) That Resolution, however, included the
purported ratifications by the unlawful puppet Legislatures of five states—Arkansas,
North Carolina, Louisiana, South Carolina, and Alabama— which had previously
rejected the 14th Amendment by action of their lawfully constituted Legislatures, as
shown above.

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,(57) 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 thirty-seven states as having ratified the Fourteenth Amendment, including the purported ratification by the unlawful puppet Legislatures of the
states of Arkansas, North Carolina, Louisiana, South Carolina, and Alabama. Without said five
purported ratifications there would have been only twenty-five states left to ratify out of
thirty-seven when a minimum of twenty-eight states was required by three fourths of the
states of the Union.

The Joint Resolution of Congress and the resulting Proclamation of the Secretary of State
also included purported ratifications by the states of Ohio and New Jersey, although the
Proclamation recognized the fact that the Legislatures of said states, several months
previously, had withdrawn their ratifications and effectively rejected the 14th Amend in
January, 1868 and April, 1868. Therefore, deducting these two states from the purported
ratification of the 14th Amend, only twenty-three state ratifications at most could be
claimed- five less than the required number required to ratify the Amendment.

From all of the above documented historic facts, it is inescapable that the 14th
Amendment was never 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 defenders of the 14th Amendment contend that the U.S. Supreme Court has decided
finally upon its validity. In what is considered the leading case, Coleman v. Miller, 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 following statement:

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.(58)

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. Congress certainly did not have the right 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 legal state governments and the nullification of the Constitution.

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 the
14th—and by their ratifications had actually made possible the adoption of the 13th, as
well as their state governments having been re-established under Presidential
Proclamations, as shown by President Johnson's veto message and proclamations, were
all brushed aside by the Court in Coleman v. Miller 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 (59)
In Coleman v. Miller, 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 Fourteenth Amendment and that the “new legislatures” had ratified it. The
Court further overlooked the fact 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.

In addition, 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 stated 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 stated. All this was
ignored and brushed aside by the Supreme Court in the Coleman v. Miller case.

However, the Court inadvertently stated:

Whenever official notice is received at the Department of State that any
amendment 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, 348, 15 L.Ed.

The framers of the Constitution might have adopted a different method.
Ratification might have been left to a vote of the people, or to some authority
of government other than that selected. The language of the article is plain,
and admits of no doubt in its interpretation. It is not the function of courts or
legislative bodies, national or state, to alter the method which the
Constitution has fixed. (60)

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

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 offset 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 question 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

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 the specified 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 process
which has never been authorized by the people of the United States of America.
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 Fourteenth Amendment. If a statute never in fact passed in 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 to administer punishment in similar cases, on a non-existent 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” has been brief above, 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 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 question it, the Congress cannot change it, and the states
themselves, though they act 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 of America
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 of America desired to change or exclude it,
they would be compelled to abolish the Constitution and start afresh.

The unalterable provision is this: “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.
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 such matters.

Even a constitutionally recognized Congress is given but one volition in Article V, and that is to
vote whether to propose an 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 which is found in Article V is to write 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 citation 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
Article V of the Constitution, 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.

As Chief Justice Marshall pointed out for a unanimous Supreme 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

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.... that courts, as well as other departments, are
bound by that instrument. (61)

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

1. United States Constitution, Article 1, Section 3.
2. Ibid., Article V.
3. New Jersey Acts, March 27, 1868.
4. Alabama House Journal, 1866, pp. 210-213.
5. Texas House Journal, 1866, p. 577.
6. Arkansas House Journal, 1866, p. 287.
7. Georgia House Journal, 1866, p. 66-67.
8. Florida House Journal, 1866, p. 76.
9. South Carolina House Journal, 1866, pp. 33-34.
10. North Carolina Senate Journal, 1866-67, pp. 92-93.
11. 14 Stat., pp. 358ff.
12. Senate Journal (39th Congress, lst Session), p. 563; House Journal, 1866, p. 889.
13. House Journal, 1866, pp. 578-584; Senate Journal, 1866, p. 471.
14. House Journal, 1866, p. 68; Senate Journal, 1866, p. 72.
15. House Journal, 1866, p. 76; Senate Journal, 1866, p. 8.
16. House Journal, 1866, pp. 210-213; Senate Journal, 1866, p. 183.
17. House Journal, 1866-67, p. 183; Senate Journal, 1866-67, p. 138.
18. House Journal, 1866, pp. 288-291; Senate Journal, 1866, p. 262.
19. House Journal, 1866, p. 284; Senate Journal, 1866, p. 230.
20. House Journal, 1867, p. 60; Senate Journal, 1867, p. 62.
21. House Journal, 1866-67, p. 108; Senate Journal, 1866-67, p. 101.
22. Reference: James M. McPherson, The Civil War and Reconstruction,
p. 194; Annual Encyclopedia, p. 452.
23. House Journal, 1867, p. 223; Senate Journal, 1867, p. 176.
24. House Journal, 1867, p. 1141; Senate Journal, 1867, p. 808.
25. Reference: James M. McPherson, Reconstruction, p. 194.
26. House Journal, 1868, pp. 44-50; Senate Journal, 1868, pp. 22-38.
27. Minutes of the Assembly, 1868, p. 743; Senate Journal, 1868, p. 356.
14th Amendment – Tool of Usurpation
Page 18 of 19
Page 19
28. House Journal (39th Congress, 2nd Session), p. 563.
29. 13 Stat., p. 567.
30. Ibid., p. 774.
31. Presidential Proclamation No. 153 in General Records of the United
States (G.S.A. National Archives and Records Service).
32. 14 Stat., p. 814.
33. House Journal (37th Congress, lst Session), p. 123.
34. Senate Journal (37th Congress, lst Session), p. 91ff.
35. 13 Stat., p. 763.
36. 14 Stat., p. 811.
37. 15 Stat., p. 14ff.
38. 14 Stat., p. 814.
39. Mississippi v. President Andrew Johnson (1867), 4 Wall. 475-502.
40. 6 Wall. 50-78, 154 U.S. 554.
41. Ex parte William H. McCardle, 7 Wall. 506-515.
42. Act of Congress, March 27, 1868, 15 Stat. at L.44.
43. House Journal (39th Congress, 2nd Session), p. 563ff.
44. House Journal (40th Congress, lst Session), p. 232ff.
45. Reference: James M. McPherson, Reconstruction, p. 53.
46. House Journal, 1868, p. 15; Senate Journal, 1868, p. 15.
47. House Journal, 1868, p. 9; Senate Journal, 1868, p. 8.
48. Senate Journal, 1868, p. 21.
49. House Journal, 1868, p. 50; Senate Journal, 1868, p. 12.
50. Reference: Francis Newton Thorpe, The Federal and State Constitutions (Washington
Government Printing, 1906), Volume 1, pp. 288-306; Ibid., Volume 11, pp. 1429-1448.
51. Reference: Francis Newton Thorpe, ibid., Volume V, pp. 2799-2800.
52. Reference: Francis Newton Thorpe, ibid., Volume II, pp. 809-822.
53. Reference: Francis Newton Thorpe, ibid., Volume 1, pp. 116-132.
54. Reference: Francis Newton Thorpe, ibid., Volume VI, pp. 3269-3281.
55. 14 Stat., p. 428ff; 15 Stat., p. 14ff.
56. 15 Stat., p. 706.
57. House Journal (40th Congress, 2nd Session), p. 1126.
58. Coleman v. Miller, 307 U.S. 448, 59 S.Ct. 972.
59. White v. Hart (1871), 13 Wall. 646, 654.
60. Hawke v. Smith (1920), 253 U.S. 221, 40 S.Ct. 227.
61. Marbury v. Madison, I Cranch, 136
14th Amendment – Tool of Usurpation
Page 19 of 19,+page+15641&hl=en&gl=us

Last edited:


Metal Messiah
Midas Member
Mar 30, 2010
One of the most important post on this board