Record- WITH VOL COVER June13,1967-Citizen_is_dead

8/7/2019 Record- WITH VOL COVER June13,1967-Citizen_is_dead

1/7


2/7

June 13, 1967 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE 15641'groups from other nations. This bipartisan organization is doing somethingmore than just talking about international understanding-it is doing something about it.

I f mankind is ever to abolish war fromthe face of the earth, we first mustbreak down the barriers of mistrust andsuspicion among the peoples of theworld. There is no better way to accomplish this than through just such programs as this one conducted by theAmerican Council of Young PoliticalLeaders.These young people will be the leaders of the world in years to come. Theywill be better leaders, more understanding and tolerant leaders, i f they are ableto expand their knowledge of other na tions, other peoples, and other politicalsystems.This is why, Mr. Speaker, I am sopleased with the work being done bythe American Council of Young Political Leaders. They have my wholeheartedsupport in their program to furtherworld understanding .THE 14TH AMENDMENT-EQUAL

PROTECTION LAW OR TOOL OFUSURPATIONMr. PRYOR. Mr. Speaker, I askunanimous consent that the gentlemanfrom Louisiana [Mr. RARICK] may extend his remarks at this point in theRECORD and include extraneous matter.The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is thereobjection to the request of the gentlemanfrom Arkansas?There was no objection.Mr. RARICK. Mr. Speaker, arrogantlyignoring clearcut expressions in the Constitution of the United States, the declared intent of its drafters notwithstanding, our unelected Federal judgesread out prohibitions of the Constitutionof the United States by adopting thefuzzy haze of the 14th amendment tolegislate their personal ideas, prejudices,theories, guilt complexes, aims, andwhims.Through the cooperation of intellectual educators, we have subjected ourselves to accept destructive use andmeaning of words and phrases. Weblindly accept new meanings andchanged values to alter our traditionalthoughts.We have tolerantly permitted the ha bitual misuse of words to serve as avehicle to abandon our foundations andgoals. Thus, the present use and expansion of the 14th amendment is a shamserving 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 14thamendment-whether ratified or not -was but the expression of emotional outpouring of public sentiment following theWar Between the States.Its obvious purpose and intent was butto free human beings from ownership asa chattel by other humans. Its aim wasno more than to free the slaves.As our politically appointed Federaljudiciary proceeds down their chosen

path of chaotic departure from the peoples' government by substituting theirpersonal law rationalized under the 14thamendment, their actions and verbiagebrand them and their team as secessionists-rebels with pens instead ofguns-seeking to divide our Union.They must be stopped. Public opinionmust be aroused. The Union must andshal l be preserved.Mr. Speaker, I ask to include in theRECORD, following my remarks, HouseConcurrent Resolution 208 of the Louisiana Legislature urging this Congress todeclare the 14th amendment illegal. Also,I include in the RECORD an informativeand well-annotated treatise on the illegality of the 14th amendment-theplay tOY of our secessionist judgeswhich has been prepared by JudgeLeander H. Perez, of Louisiana.The mat erial referred to follows:

H. CON. RES. 208A concurrent resolution to expose th e un constltutlonallty of th e 14th admendmentto the Constitution of th e United States;to Interpose th e sovereignty of th e Stateof Louisiana against th e execution of saidamendment In this State; to memorlallzeth e Congress of th e United States to repeal Its joint resolution of July 28, 1868,declaring that said amendment ha d beenratified; and to provide for th e distribution of certified copies of this resolutionWhereas th e purported 14th Amendmentto th e United States Constitution was neverlawfully adopted In accordance with th e requirements of th e United States Constitution because eleven states of th e Union weredeprived of their equal suffrage In th e Senate in violation of Article V, when elevensouthern states, Including Louisiana. wereexcluded from dellberatlon an d decision Inth e adoption of th e Joint Resolution proposing said 14th Amendment; said Resolutionwas no t presented to the President of th eUnited States In order that th e same shouldtake effect. as required by Article 1. Section7; th e proposed amendment was no t ratified by three-fourths of th e states. bu t toth e contrary fifteen states of the thenthirty-seven states of th e Union rejected th eproposed 14th Amendment between th edates of Its submission to th e states by th eSecretary of State on June 16. 1866 an dMarch 24, 1868. thereby nulllfying saidResolution an d making It Impossible for ratification by th e constitutionally requiredthree-fourths of such states; said southernstates which were denied their equal suffrage In th e Senate ha d been recognized byproclamations of th e President of th e UnitedStates to have duly constituted governmentswith al l th e powers which belong to freestates of th e Union. an d th e Legislatures ofseven of said southern states ha d ratified th e13th Amendment which would have failedof ratification bu t for th e ratification of saidseven southern states; an dWhereas th e Reconstruction Acts of Congress unlawfully overthrew their existing

governments. removed their lawfully constituted legislatures by m!l!tary force an d replaced them with rump legislatures whichcarried ou t m!l!tary orders an d pretendedto ratify th e 14th Amendment; an dWhereas In spite of th e fact that th e Secretary of State In his first proclamation.on July 20. 1868. expressed doubt as towhether three-fourths of th e required statesha d ratified th e 14th Amendment. Congressnevertheless adopted a resolution on July 28.1868. unlawfully declaring that three-fourthsof th e states ha d ratified th e 14th Amendment an d directed th e Secretary of State toso proclaim, said Joint Resolution of Congress an d th e resulting proclamation of th e

Secretary of State Included th e purportedratifications of th e military enforced rumplegislatures of ten southern states whoselawful legislatures ha d previously rejectedsaid 14th Amendment. an d also Includedpurported ratifications by th e legislaturesof the States of Ohio an d New Jersey althoughthey ha d withdrawn their legislative ratifications several months previously. al l ofwhich proves absolutely that said 14thAmendment was no t adopted In accordancewith th e mandatory constitutional requirements set forth In Article V of th e Constitution an d therefore th e Constitution Itselfstrikes with nulllty th e purported 14thAmendment.Now therefore be It resolved by th e Legislature of Louisiana. th e House of Representatives an d th e Senate concurring:(1) That the Legislature go on record asexposing th e unconstltutionallty of th e 14thAmendment, an d Interposes th e sovereigntyof th e State of Louisiana against th e execution of said 14th Amendment against th eState of Louisiana an d It s people;(2) That the Legislature of Louisiana opposes th e use of th e Invalld 14th amendment by th e Federal courts to Impose furtherunlawful edicts and hardships on Its people;(3) That the Congress of th e United Statesbe memorlallzed by this Legislature to repealits unlawful Joint Resolution of July 28,1868. declaring that three-fourths of th estates ha d ratified th e 14th Amendment toth e United States Constitution;(4) That the Legislatures of th e otherstates of th e Union be memoriallzed to giveserious study and consideration to take similar action against th e valldity of th e 14thAmendment an d to uphold and support th eConstitution of th e United States whichstrikes said 14th Amendment with nUllity;an d(5) That copies of this Resolution. dulycertified. together with a copy of th e treatiseon "The Unconstltutionallty of th e 14thAmendment" by JUdge L. H. Perez. be forwarded to th e Governors an d Secretaries ofState of each state in th e Union, an d to theSecretaries of th e United States Senate an dHouse of Congress. an d to the Louisiana Congressional delegation. a copy hereof to bepubllshed in the Congressional Record.VAIL M. DELONY.Speaker 0/ th e House 0/ Representatives.C. C. AYCOCK.Lieutenant Governor and President

0/ the Senate.THE 14TH AMENDMENT Is UNCONSTITUTIONAL

Th e purported 14th Amendment to th eUnited States Constitution Is and should beheld to be Ineffective. Invalid. null. void an dunconstitutional for th e following reasons:1. Th e Joint Resolution proposing saidAmendment was not submitted to or adoptedby a Constitutional Congress. Article I. Section 3. an d Article V of th e U.S. Constitution.2. Th e JOint Resolution was no t submittedto th e President for his approval. Article I.Section 7.3. The proposed 14th Amendment was re jected by more than one-fourth of al l th eStates then in the Union, an d it was never

ratified by three-fourths of al l th e States Inth e Union. Article V.I. THE UNCONSTITUTIONAL CONGRESSThe U.S. Constitution provides:Article I. Section 3. "The Senate of th eUnited States shall be composed of two Senators from each State . "Article V provides: "No State. without Itsconsent, shall be deprived of It s equal suffrage In the Senate."The fact that 23 Senators had been unlawfully excluded from th e U.S. Senate. In orderto secure a two-thirds vote for adoption ofth e Joint Resolution proposing th e 14thAmendment Is shown by Resolutions of pro-

June 13, 1967 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE 15641'groups from other nations. This bipartisan organization is doing somethingmore than just talking about international understanding-it is doing something about it.

I f mankind is ever to abolish war fromthe face of the earth, we first mustbreak down the barriers of mistrust andsuspicion among the peoples of theworld. There is no better way to accomplish this than through just such programs as this one conducted by theAmerican Council of Young PoliticalLeaders.These young people will be the leaders of the world in years to come. Theywill be better leaders, more understanding and tolerant leaders, i f they are ableto expand their knowledge of other na tions, other peoples, and other politicalsystems.This is why, Mr. Speaker, I am sopleased with the work being done bythe American Council of Young Political Leaders. They have my wholeheartedsupport in their program to furtherworld understanding .THE 14TH AMENDMENT-EQUAL

PROTECTION LAW OR TOOL OFUSURPATIONMr. PRYOR. Mr. Speaker, I askunanimous consent that the gentlemanfrom Louisiana [Mr. RARICK] may extend his remarks at this point in theRECORD and include extraneous matter.The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is thereobjection to the request of the gentlemanfrom Arkansas?There was no objection.Mr. RARICK. Mr. Speaker, arrogantlyignoring clearcut expressions in the Constitution of the United States, the declared intent of its drafters notwithstanding, our unelected Federal judgesread out prohibitions of the Constitutionof the United States by adopting thefuzzy haze of the 14th amendment tolegislate their personal ideas, prejudices,theories, guilt complexes, aims, andwhims.Through the cooperation of intellectual educators, we have subjected ourselves to accept destructive use andmeaning of words and phrases. Weblindly accept new meanings andchanged values to alter our traditionalthoughts.We have tolerantly permitted the ha bitual misuse of words to serve as avehicle to abandon our foundations andgoals. Thus, the present use and expansion of the 14th amendment is a shamserving 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 14thamendment-whether ratified or not -was but the expression of emotional outpouring of public sentiment following theWar Between the States.Its obvious purpose and intent was butto free human beings from ownership asa chattel by other humans. Its aim wasno more than to free the slaves.As our politically appointed Federaljudiciary proceeds down their chosen

path of chaotic departure from the peoples' government by substituting theirpersonal law rationalized under the 14thamendment, their actions and verbiagebrand them and their team as secessionists-rebels with pens instead ofguns-seeking to divide our Union.They must be stopped. Public opinionmust be aroused. The Union must andshal l be preserved.Mr. Speaker, I ask to include in theRECORD, following my remarks, HouseConcurrent Resolution 208 of the Louisiana Legislature urging this Congress todeclare the 14th amendment illegal. Also,I include in the RECORD an informativeand well-annotated treatise on the illegality of the 14th amendment-theplay tOY of our secessionist judgeswhich has been prepared by JudgeLeander H. Perez, of Louisiana.The mat erial referred to follows:

H. CON. RES. 208A concurrent resolution to expose th e un constltutlonallty of th e 14th admendmentto the Constitution of th e United States;to Interpose th e sovereignty of th e Stateof Louisiana against th e execution of saidamendment In this State; to memorlallzeth e Congress of th e United States to repeal Its joint resolution of July 28, 1868,declaring that said amendment ha d beenratified; and to provide for th e distribution of certified copies of this resolutionWhereas th e purported 14th Amendmentto th e United States Constitution was neverlawfully adopted In accordance with th e requirements of th e United States Constitution because eleven states of th e Union weredeprived of their equal suffrage In th e Senate in violation of Article V, when elevensouthern states, Including Louisiana. wereexcluded from dellberatlon an d decision Inth e adoption of th e Joint Resolution proposing said 14th Amendment; said Resolutionwas no t presented to the President of th eUnited States In order that th e same shouldtake effect. as required by Article 1. Section7; th e proposed amendment was no t ratified by three-fourths of th e states. bu t toth e contrary fifteen states of the thenthirty-seven states of th e Union rejected th eproposed 14th Amendment between th edates of Its submission to th e states by th eSecretary of State on June 16. 1866 an dMarch 24, 1868. thereby nulllfying saidResolution an d making It Impossible for ratification by th e constitutionally requiredthree-fourths of such states; said southernstates which were denied their equal suffrage In th e Senate ha d been recognized byproclamations of th e President of th e UnitedStates to have duly constituted governmentswith al l th e powers which belong to freestates of th e Union. an d th e Legislatures ofseven of said southern states ha d ratified th e13th Amendment which would have failedof ratification bu t for th e ratification of saidseven southern states; an dWhereas th e Reconstruction Acts of Congress unlawfully overthrew their existing

governments. removed their lawfully constituted legislatures by m!l!tary force an d replaced them with rump legislatures whichcarried ou t m!l!tary orders an d pretendedto ratify th e 14th Amendment; an dWhereas In spite of th e fact that th e Secretary of State In his first proclamation.on July 20. 1868. expressed doubt as towhether three-fourths of th e required statesha d ratified th e 14th Amendment. Congressnevertheless adopted a resolution on July 28.1868. unlawfully declaring that three-fourthsof th e states ha d ratified th e 14th Amendment an d directed th e Secretary of State toso proclaim, said Joint Resolution of Congress an d th e resulting proclamation of th e

Secretary of State Included th e purportedratifications of th e military enforced rumplegislatures of ten southern states whoselawful legislatures ha d previously rejectedsaid 14th Amendment. an d also Includedpurported ratifications by th e legislaturesof the States of Ohio an d New Jersey althoughthey ha d withdrawn their legislative ratifications several months previously. al l ofwhich proves absolutely that said 14thAmendment was no t adopted In accordancewith th e mandatory constitutional requirements set forth In Article V of th e Constitution an d therefore th e Constitution Itselfstrikes with nulllty th e purported 14thAmendment.Now therefore be It resolved by th e Legislature of Louisiana. th e House of Representatives an d th e Senate concurring:(1) That the Legislature go on record asexposing th e unconstltutionallty of th e 14thAmendment, an d Interposes th e sovereigntyof th e State of Louisiana against th e execution of said 14th Amendment against th eState of Louisiana an d It s people;(2) That the Legislature of Louisiana opposes th e use of th e Invalld 14th amendment by th e Federal courts to Impose furtherunlawful edicts and hardships on Its people;(3) That the Congress of th e United Statesbe memorlallzed by this Legislature to repealits unlawful Joint Resolution of July 28,1868. declaring that three-fourths of th estates ha d ratified th e 14th Amendment toth e United States Constitution;(4) That the Legislatures of th e otherstates of th e Union be memoriallzed to giveserious study and consideration to take similar action against th e valldity of th e 14thAmendment an d to uphold and support th eConstitution of th e United States whichstrikes said 14th Amendment with nUllity;an d(5) That copies of this Resolution. dulycertified. together with a copy of th e treatiseon "The Unconstltutionallty of th e 14thAmendment" by JUdge L. H. Perez. be forwarded to th e Governors an d Secretaries ofState of each state in th e Union, an d to theSecretaries of th e United States Senate an dHouse of Congress. an d to the Louisiana Congressional delegation. a copy hereof to bepubllshed in the Congressional Record.VAIL M. DELONY.Speaker 0/ th e House 0/ Representatives.C. C. AYCOCK.Lieutenant Governor and President

0/ the Senate.THE 14TH AMENDMENT Is UNCONSTITUTIONAL

Th e purported 14th Amendment to th eUnited States Constitution Is and should beheld to be Ineffective. Invalid. null. void an dunconstitutional for th e following reasons:1. Th e Joint Resolution proposing saidAmendment was not submitted to or adoptedby a Constitutional Congress. Article I. Section 3. an d Article V of th e U.S. Constitution.2. Th e JOint Resolution was no t submittedto th e President for his approval. Article I.Section 7.3. The proposed 14th Amendment was re jected by more than one-fourth of al l th eStates then in the Union, an d it was never

ratified by three-fourths of al l th e States Inth e Union. Article V.I. THE UNCONSTITUTIONAL CONGRESSThe U.S. Constitution provides:Article I. Section 3. "The Senate of th eUnited States shall be composed of two Senators from each State . "Article V provides: "No State. without Itsconsent, shall be deprived of It s equal suffrage In the Senate."The fact that 23 Senators had been unlawfully excluded from th e U.S. Senate. In orderto secure a two-thirds vote for adoption ofth e Joint Resolution proposing th e 14thAmendment Is shown by Resolutions of pro-


3/7

15642 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE June 13, 1967test adopted by th e following State Legislatures:Th e New Jersey Legislature by Resolutionof March 27, 1868, protested as follows:"The sald proposed amendment no t havingye t received th e assent of th e three-fourthsof th e states, which Is necessary to make Itvalid, the natural an d constitutional rightof this state to withdraw Its assent isundeniable .""That It being necessary by the constitution that every amendment to th e sameshould be proposed by two-thirds of bothhouses of congress, th e authors of saidproposition, for th e purpose of securing th eassent of th e requisite majority, determinedto , an d did, exclude from th e said two houseseighty representatives from eleven states ofth e union, upon th e pretence that there wereno such states In th e Union; but, findingthat two-thirds of th e remainder of th e saidhouses could no t be brought to assent toth e said proposition, they dellberately formedan d carried ou t th e design of mutilating th eintegrity of th e United States senate, an dwithout any pretext or justification, otherthan th e possession of th e power, without th eright, an d in palpable violation of th e constitution, ejected a member of their own body,representing this state, an d thus practicallydenied to New Jersey it s equal suffrage inth e senate, an d thereby nominally securedth e vote of two-thirds of th e said houses." 1The Alabama Legislature protested againstbeing deprived of representation In th e Senat e of th e U.S. Congress.'Th e Texas Legislature by Resolution onOctober 15, 1866, protested as follows:"The amendment to th e Constitution proposed by this joint resolution as ArticleXIV is presented to the Legislature of Texasfor it s action thereon, under Article V of thatConstitution. This Article V, providing th emode of making amendments to that instrument, contemplates th e participation by allth e States through their representatives inCongress, in proposing amendments. As representatives from nearly one-third of th estates were excluded from th e Congress proposing th e amendments, the constitutionalrequirement was no t complied with; It wasviolated in letter and in spirit; an d th e proposing of these amendments to States whichwere excluded from all participation In theirinitiation In Congress, is a nullity."Th e Arkansas Legislature, by Resolution onDecember 17, 1866, protested as follows:"The Constitution authorized two-thirdsof both houses of Congress to propose amendments; and, as eleven States were excludedfrom deliberation an d decision upon th e on enow submitted, th e conclusion Is Inevitablethat i t is no t proposed by legal authority,bu t In palpable violation of th e Constitution.""Th e Georgia Legislature, by Resolution onNovember 9,1866, protested as follows:"Since th e reorganization of th e State government, Georgia has elected Senators an dRepresentatives. So ha s every other State.They have been arbitraril y refused admissionto their seats, no t on th e ground that th equallficatlons of th e members elected did no tconform to th e fourth paragraph, second section, first article of th e Constitution, bu tbecause their right of representation wasdenied by a portion of th e States havingequal but no t greater rights than themselves.They have in fact been forcibly excluded;and, inasmuch as all legislative power granted by th e States to the Congress is defined,and this power of exclusion Is no t among th epowers expressly or by Implication, th e as semblage, at th e capitol, of representativesfrom a portion of th e States, to th e exclusionof th e representatives of another portion,

1 New Jersey Acts, March 27, 1868.o Alabama House Journal 1866, pp. 210-213.3 Texas House Journal, 1866, p. 577. Arkansas House Journal, 1866, p. 287.

cannot be a constitutional Congress, whenth e representation of each State forms anIntegral part of the whole."This amendment Is tendered to Georgiafor ratification, under that power In th e Constitution which authorizes two-thirds of th eCongress to propose amendments. We haveendeavored to establish that Georgia ha d aright, In th e first place, as a part of th e Congress, to act upon the question, 'Shall theseamendments be proposed?' Every other excluded State ha d th e same right."The first constitutional privilege ha s beenarbitrarily denied. Had these amendmentsbeen submitted to a constitutional Congress,they never would have been proposed to th eStates. Two-thirds of th e whole Congressnever would have proposed to eleven Statesvoluntarily to reduce their political power inth e Union, an d at th e same time, disfranchise th e larger portion of th e Intellect, in tegrity an d patriotism of eleven co-equalStates." 5Th e Florida Legislature, by Resolution ofDecember 5, 1866, protested as follows:"Let this alteration be made in th e organicsystem an d some new and more startllng demands mayor may no t be required by th epredominant party previous to allowing th ete n States now unlawfully and unconstitutionally deprived of their right of representation to enter th e Halls of th e NationalLegislature. Their right to representation isguaranteed by the Constitution of this countr y an d there Is no act, no t even that ofrebeillon, can deprive them of Its exercise." The South Carolina Legislature by Resolution of November 27, 1866, protested as follows:"Eleven of th e Southern States, IncludingSouth Carolina, are deprived of their representation In Congress. Although their Senators an d Representatives have been dulyelected an d have presented themselvesfor th e purpose of taking their seats, theircredentials have, in most Instances, been laidupon th e table without being read, or havebeen referred to a committee, who havefailed to make any report on th e subject. Inshort, Congress ha s refused to exercise it sConstitutional functions, an d decide eitherupon th e election, th e return, or th e qualification of these selected by th e States an dpeople to represent us. Some of th e Senatorsan d RepresentatiVes from th e SouthernStates were prepared to take th e test oath,but even these have been persistently ignored, and kept ou t of th e seats to whichthey were entitled under th e Constitutionan d laws."Hence this amendment ha s no t been proposed by 'two-thirds of both Houses' of alegally constituted Congress, an d Is not, constitutionally or legitimately, before a singleLegislature for ratification.'"Th e North Carolina Legislature protestedby Resolution of December 6, 1866 as follows:"The Federal Constitution declares, In substance, that Congress shall consist of a Houseof Representatives, composed of membersapportioned among th e respective States inth e ratio of their population, an d of a Senate, composed of two members from eachState. And In th e Article which concernsAmendments, i t is expressly provided that'n o state, without It consent, shall be deprived of Its equal suffrage In th e Senate.'Th e contemplated Amendment was no t proposed to the States by a Congress thuA constituted. At th e time of its adoption, th eeleven seceding States were deprived of representation both In th e Senate an d House,although they all, except the State of Texas,ha d Senators an d Representatives dulyelected an d claiming their privUeges under

Georgia House Journal, November 9, 1866,pp.66-67. Florida House Journal, 1866, p. 76.7 South Carolina House Journal, 1866, pp.33 an d 34.

th e Constitution. In consequence of this,these States ha d no voice on th e Importantquestion of proposing th e Amendment. Hadthey been allowed to give their votes, th eproposition would doubtless have failed tocommand th e required two-thirds ma -jority.

If th e votes of these States are necessary toa valid ratification of th e Amendment, theywere equally necessary on th e question ofproposing i t to th e States; for It would bedifficult, In the opinion of th e Committee, toshow by what process in logic, men of Intelligence could arrive at a different conclusion." II . JOINT RESOLUTION INEFFECTIVEArticle I, Section 7 provides that no t onlyevery bill which shall have been passed byth e House of Representatives an d th e Senateof th e United States Congress, but that:"Every order, resolution, or vote to whichth e concurrence of th e Senate an d House ofRepresentatives may be necessary (excepton a question of adjournment) shall be presented to th e President of th e United States;an d before th e same shall take effect, shallbe approved by him, or being disapproved byhi m shall be repassed by two-thirds of th eSenate an d House of Representatives, according to the rules and limitations prescribed in th e case of a bill."Th e Joint Resolution proposing th e 14thAmendment 0 was never presented to th ePresident of th e United States for his ap proval, as President Andrew Johnson statedin hi s message on June 22, 1866.10 Therefore,th e Joint Resolution did no t take effect.m. PROPOSED AMENDMENT NEVER RATIFIED BY

THREE-FOURTHS OF TH E STATES1. Pretermitting th e ineffectiveness of saidresolution, as above, fifteen (15) States outof th e then thirty-seven (37) States of th eUnion rejected th e proposed 14th Amendment between th e date of Its submission toth e States by th e Secretary of State onJune 16, 1866 an d March 24, 1868, therebyfurther nullifying said resolution and making It ImpOssible fo r it s ratification by th econstitutionally required three-fourths ofsuch States, as shown by th e rejectionsthereof by th e Legislatures of th e followingstates:Texas rejected th e 14th Amendment onOctober 27, 1866.11Georgia rejected th e 14th Amendment onNovember 9, 1866."Florida rejected th e 14th Amendment onDecember 6, 1866.' Alabama rejected th e 14th Amendment onDecember 7, 1866.14North Carolina rejected th e 14th Amendment on December 14, 1866."Arkansas rejected th e 14th Amendment onDecember 17, 1866.' South Carolina rejected th e 14th Amendment on December 20, 1866."Kentucky rejected th e 14th Amendment onJanuary 8, 1867." North Carolina Senate Journal, 1866-67,pp. 92 an d 93.o 14 Stat. 358 etc.,. Senate Journal, 39th Congress, 1s t sessn.

p. 563, an d House Journal p. 889.11 House Journal 1866, pp. 578-584-SenateJournal 1866, p. 471.12 House Journal 1866, p. 68-Senate Journa l 1866, p. 72.

18 House Journal 1866, p. 78-Senate Journa l 1866, p. 8.H House Journal 1866, pp. 210-213-8enateJournal 1866, p. 183.15 House Journal 1866-1867, p. 183-SenateJournal 1866-1867, p. 138.,. House Journal 1866, pp. 288-291-SenateJournal 1866, p. 262.17 House Journal 1866, p. 284-Senate Journa l 1886, p. 230.,. House Journal 1867, p. 6Q--Senate Journa l 1867, p. 62.

15642 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE June 13, 1967test adopted by th e following State Legislatures:Th e New Jersey Legislature by Resolutionof March 27, 1868, protested as follows:"The sald proposed amendment no t havingye t received th e assent of th e three-fourthsof th e states, which Is necessary to make Itvalid, the natural an d constitutional rightof this state to withdraw Its assent isundeniable .""That It being necessary by the constitution that every amendment to th e sameshould be proposed by two-thirds of bothhouses of congress, th e authors of saidproposition, for th e purpose of securing th eassent of th e requisite majority, determinedto , an d did, exclude from th e said two houseseighty representatives from eleven states ofth e union, upon th e pretence that there wereno such states In th e Union; but, findingthat two-thirds of th e remainder of th e saidhouses could no t be brought to assent toth e said proposition, they dellberately formedan d carried ou t th e design of mutilating th eintegrity of th e United States senate, an dwithout any pretext or justification, otherthan th e possession of th e power, without th eright, an d in palpable violation of th e constitution, ejected a member of their own body,representing this state, an d thus practicallydenied to New Jersey it s equal suffrage inth e senate, an d thereby nominally securedth e vote of two-thirds of th e said houses." 1The Alabama Legislature protested againstbeing deprived of representation In th e Senat e of th e U.S. Congress.'Th e Texas Legislature by Resolution onOctober 15, 1866, protested as follows:"The amendment to th e Constitution proposed by this joint resolution as ArticleXIV is presented to the Legislature of Texasfor it s action thereon, under Article V of thatConstitution. This Article V, providing th emode of making amendments to that instrument, contemplates th e participation by allth e States through their representatives inCongress, in proposing amendments. As representatives from nearly one-third of th estates were excluded from th e Congress proposing th e amendments, the constitutionalrequirement was no t complied with; It wasviolated in letter and in spirit; an d th e proposing of these amendments to States whichwere excluded from all participation In theirinitiation In Congress, is a nullity."Th e Arkansas Legislature, by Resolution onDecember 17, 1866, protested as follows:"The Constitution authorized two-thirdsof both houses of Congress to propose amendments; and, as eleven States were excludedfrom deliberation an d decision upon th e on enow submitted, th e conclusion Is Inevitablethat i t is no t proposed by legal authority,bu t In palpable violation of th e Constitution.""Th e Georgia Legislature, by Resolution onNovember 9,1866, protested as follows:"Since th e reorganization of th e State government, Georgia has elected Senators an dRepresentatives. So ha s every other State.They have been arbitraril y refused admissionto their seats, no t on th e ground that th equallficatlons of th e members elected did no tconform to th e fourth paragraph, second section, first article of th e Constitution, bu tbecause their right of representation wasdenied by a portion of th e States havingequal but no t greater rights than themselves.They have in fact been forcibly excluded;and, inasmuch as all legislative power granted by th e States to the Congress is defined,and this power of exclusion Is no t among th epowers expressly or by Implication, th e as semblage, at th e capitol, of representativesfrom a portion of th e States, to th e exclusionof th e representatives of another portion,

1 New Jersey Acts, March 27, 1868.o Alabama House Journal 1866, pp. 210-213.3 Texas House Journal, 1866, p. 577. Arkansas House Journal, 1866, p. 287.

cannot be a constitutional Congress, whenth e representation of each State forms anIntegral part of the whole."This amendment Is tendered to Georgiafor ratification, under that power In th e Constitution which authorizes two-thirds of th eCongress to propose amendments. We haveendeavored to establish that Georgia ha d aright, In th e first place, as a part of th e Congress, to act upon the question, 'Shall theseamendments be proposed?' Every other excluded State ha d th e same right."The first constitutional privilege ha s beenarbitrarily denied. Had these amendmentsbeen submitted to a constitutional Congress,they never would have been proposed to th eStates. Two-thirds of th e whole Congressnever would have proposed to eleven Statesvoluntarily to reduce their political power inth e Union, an d at th e same time, disfranchise th e larger portion of th e Intellect, in tegrity an d patriotism of eleven co-equalStates." 5Th e Florida Legislature, by Resolution ofDecember 5, 1866, protested as follows:"Let this alteration be made in th e organicsystem an d some new and more startllng demands mayor may no t be required by th epredominant party previous to allowing th ete n States now unlawfully and unconstitutionally deprived of their right of representation to enter th e Halls of th e NationalLegislature. Their right to representation isguaranteed by the Constitution of this countr y an d there Is no act, no t even that ofrebeillon, can deprive them of Its exercise." The South Carolina Legislature by Resolution of November 27, 1866, protested as follows:"Eleven of th e Southern States, IncludingSouth Carolina, are deprived of their representation In Congress. Although their Senators an d Representatives have been dulyelected an d have presented themselvesfor th e purpose of taking their seats, theircredentials have, in most Instances, been laidupon th e table without being read, or havebeen referred to a committee, who havefailed to make any report on th e subject. Inshort, Congress ha s refused to exercise it sConstitutional functions, an d decide eitherupon th e election, th e return, or th e qualification of these selected by th e States an dpeople to represent us. Some of th e Senatorsan d RepresentatiVes from th e SouthernStates were prepared to take th e test oath,but even these have been persistently ignored, and kept ou t of th e seats to whichthey were entitled under th e Constitutionan d laws."Hence this amendment ha s no t been proposed by 'two-thirds of both Houses' of alegally constituted Congress, an d Is not, constitutionally or legitimately, before a singleLegislature for ratification.'"Th e North Carolina Legislature protestedby Resolution of December 6, 1866 as follows:"The Federal Constitution declares, In substance, that Congress shall consist of a Houseof Representatives, composed of membersapportioned among th e respective States inth e ratio of their population, an d of a Senate, composed of two members from eachState. And In th e Article which concernsAmendments, i t is expressly provided that'n o state, without It consent, shall be deprived of Its equal suffrage In th e Senate.'Th e contemplated Amendment was no t proposed to the States by a Congress thuA constituted. At th e time of its adoption, th eeleven seceding States were deprived of representation both In th e Senate an d House,although they all, except the State of Texas,ha d Senators an d Representatives dulyelected an d claiming their privUeges under

Georgia House Journal, November 9, 1866,pp.66-67. Florida House Journal, 1866, p. 76.7 South Carolina House Journal, 1866, pp.33 an d 34.

th e Constitution. In consequence of this,these States ha d no voice on th e Importantquestion of proposing th e Amendment. Hadthey been allowed to give their votes, th eproposition would doubtless have failed tocommand th e required two-thirds ma -jority.

If th e votes of these States are necessary toa valid ratification of th e Amendment, theywere equally necessary on th e question ofproposing i t to th e States; for It would bedifficult, In the opinion of th e Committee, toshow by what process in logic, men of Intelligence could arrive at a different conclusion." II . JOINT RESOLUTION INEFFECTIVEArticle I, Section 7 provides that no t onlyevery bill which shall have been passed byth e House of Representatives an d th e Senateof th e United States Congress, but that:"Every order, resolution, or vote to whichth e concurrence of th e Senate an d House ofRepresentatives may be necessary (excepton a question of adjournment) shall be presented to th e President of th e United States;an d before th e same shall take effect, shallbe approved by him, or being disapproved byhi m shall be repassed by two-thirds of th eSenate an d House of Representatives, according to the rules and limitations prescribed in th e case of a bill."Th e Joint Resolution proposing th e 14thAmendment 0 was never presented to th ePresident of th e United States for his ap proval, as President Andrew Johnson statedin hi s message on June 22, 1866.10 Therefore,th e Joint Resolution did no t take effect.m. PROPOSED AMENDMENT NEVER RATIFIED BY

THREE-FOURTHS OF TH E STATES1. Pretermitting th e ineffectiveness of saidresolution, as above, fifteen (15) States outof th e then thirty-seven (37) States of th eUnion rejected th e proposed 14th Amendment between th e date of Its submission toth e States by th e Secretary of State onJune 16, 1866 an d March 24, 1868, therebyfurther nullifying said resolution and making It ImpOssible fo r it s ratification by th econstitutionally required three-fourths ofsuch States, as shown by th e rejectionsthereof by th e Legislatures of th e followingstates:Texas rejected th e 14th Amendment onOctober 27, 1866.11Georgia rejected th e 14th Amendment onNovember 9, 1866."Florida rejected th e 14th Amendment onDecember 6, 1866.' Alabama rejected th e 14th Amendment onDecember 7, 1866.14North Carolina rejected th e 14th Amendment on December 14, 1866."Arkansas rejected th e 14th Amendment onDecember 17, 1866.' South Carolina rejected th e 14th Amendment on December 20, 1866."Kentucky rejected th e 14th Amendment onJanuary 8, 1867." North Carolina Senate Journal, 1866-67,pp. 92 an d 93.o 14 Stat. 358 etc.,. Senate Journal, 39th Congress, 1s t sessn.

p. 563, an d House Journal p. 889.11 House Journal 1866, pp. 578-584-SenateJournal 1866, p. 471.12 House Journal 1866, p. 68-Senate Journa l 1866, p. 72.

18 House Journal 1866, p. 78-Senate Journa l 1866, p. 8.H House Journal 1866, pp. 210-213-8enateJournal 1866, p. 183.15 House Journal 1866-1867, p. 183-SenateJournal 1866-1867, p. 138.,. House Journal 1866, pp. 288-291-SenateJournal 1866, p. 262.17 House Journal 1866, p. 284-Senate Journa l 1886, p. 230.,. House Journal 1867, p. 6Q--Senate Journa l 1867, p. 62.


4/7

June 13, 1967 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE 15643Virginia rejected th e 14th Amendment onJanuary 9, 1867.19Louisiana rejected th e 14th Amendmenton February 6, 1867.'"Delaware rejected th e 14th Amendment onFebruary 7, 1867.21Maryland rejected tho 14th Amendment onMarch 23, 1867.22Mississippi rejected th e 14th Amendmenton January 31, 1867.23Ohio rejected th e 14th Amendment onJanuary 15, 1868."New Jersey rejected th e 14th Amendmenton March 24, 1868."There was no question that all of th eSouthern states which rejected th e 14thAmendment ha d legally constituted governments, were fully recognized by th e federalgovernment, an d were functioning as membe r states of th e Union at th e time of theirrejection.President Andrew Johnson, in hi s Vetomessage of March 2, 1867,20 pointed ou t that:"It is no t denied that the States in question have each of them an actual government with all th e powers, executive, judicialan d legislative, which properly belong to afree State. They are organized like th e otherStates of th e Union, and, like them, theymake, administer, an d execute th e lawswhich concern their domestic affairs."If further proof were needed that theseStates were operating under legally constituted governments as member States in the

Union, th e ratification of th e 13th Amendment by December 8, 1865 undoubtedly supplies this official proof. If th e SouthernStates were no t member States of th e Union,th e 13th Amendment would no t have beensubmitted to their Legislatures for ratification.2. Th e 13th Amendment to th e UnitedStates Constitution was proposed by JointResolution of Congress7 an d was approvedFebruary 1, 1865 by President Abraham Lincoln, as required by Article I, Section 7 of th eUnited States Constitution. The President'ssignature Is affixed to the Resolution.Th e 13th Amendment was ratified by 27states of the then 36 states of th e Union,Including th e Southern States of Virginia,Louisiana, Arkansas, South Carolina, Alabama, North Carolina an d Georgia. This Isshown by th e Proclamation of th e Secretaryof State December 18, 1965.28 Without th evotes of these 7 Southern State Legislaturesth e 13th Amendment would have faUed.There ca n be no doubt but that th e ratification by these 7 Southern States of th e 13thAmendment again established th e fact thattheir Legislatures and State governmentswere duly and lawfully constituted and functioning as such under their State Constitutions.3. Furthermore, on April 2, 1866, PresidentAndrew Johnson Issued a proclamation that,"the insurrection which heretofore existedIn th e States of Georgia, South CarOlina, Virginia, North CarOlina, Tennessee, Alabama,LouiSiana, Arkansas, Mississippi an d FloridaIs at an end, an d Is henceforth to be so regarded." 29

,. House Journal 1866-1867, p. 108-SenateJournal 1866-1867, p. 101.20 McPherson, Reconstruction, p. 194; An-nual Encyclopedia, p. 452.

21 House Journal 1867, p. 223-Senate Jour-na l 1867, p. 176.22 House Journal 1867. p. 1141-SenateJournal 1867, p. 808.23 McPherson, Reconstruction, p. 194... House Journal 1868, pp. 44-50-senateJournal 1868, pp. 33-38... Minutes of th e Assembly 1868, p. 743-Senate Journal 1868, p. 356.,. House Journal, 39th Congress, 2nd Ses-sion. p. 563 etc.27 13 Stat. p. 567.28 13 Stat. p. 774... Presidential Proclamation No. 153. Gen-

CXIII - -986-Par t 12

On August 20, 1866, President AndrewJohnson Issued another proclamation 30pointing out the fact that th e House of Representatives an d Senate had adopted Identical Resolutions on July 22nd al. an d July25th, 1861,82 that th e Clv1l War forced bydisunionists of the Southern States, was no twaged for th e purpose of conquest or tooverthrow th e rights an d established institutions of those States. bu t to defend an dmaintain th e supremacy of th e Constitutionan d to preserve th e Union with all equalityan d rights of th e several states unimpaired,an d that as soon as these objects are accomplished, th e war ought to cease. The President's proclamation on June 13, 1865, declared th e insurrection In th e State of Tennessee ha d been suppressed.s Th e President's proclamation on April 2, 1866,'" declared th e Insurrection In th e other Souther n States, except Texas, no longer existed.On August 20, 1866,35 th e President proclaimed that th e Insurrection in the State ofTexas had been completely ended; an d hisproclamation continued: "the InsurrectionWhich heretofore existed In th e State ofTexas Is at an end, an d Is to be henceforthso regarded In that State, as In th e otherStates before named In which th e said Insurrection was proclaimed to be at an en dby th e aforesaid proclamation of th e secondday of Apr1l, one thousand, eight hundredan d sixty-six."And I do further proclaim that th e saidinsurrection Is at an end, an d that peace,order, tranqu1l1ty, an d civil authority nowexist, In and throughout th e whole of th eUnited States of America."4. When th e State of Louisiana rejectedth e 14th Amendment on February 6, 1867,making th e 10th state to have rejected th esame, or more than one-fourth of th e totalnumber of 36 states of th e Union as of thatdate, thus leaving less than three-fourths ofth e states possibly to ratify th e same, th eAmendment fa1led of ratification in fact an din law, and It could no t have been revivedexcept by a new Joint Resolution of th eSenate an d House of Representatives Inaccordance with Constitutional reqUirement.5. Faced with th e positive failure of ratification of th e 14th Amendment, both Housesof Congress passed over th e veto of th e President three Acts known as ReconstructionActs, between th e dates of March 2 an dJuly 19, 1867, especially the third of saidActs, 15 Stat. p. 14 etc., designed illegallyto remove with "Military force" th e lawfullyconstituted State Legislatures of th e 10Southern States of Virginia, North Carolina,South CarOlina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama,Mississippi, Arkansas, Louisiana an d Texas.In President Andrew Johnson's Veto messageon th e Reconstruction Act of March 2, 1867,"he pointed ou t these unconstltutlonal1ties:

" I f ever th e American citizen should beleft to th e free exercise of hi s own jUdgment,it is when he Is engaged In th e work of formin g th e fundamental law under which he Isto live. That work Is hi s work, an d it canno t properly be taken ou t of his hands. Allthis legislation proceeds upon th e contraryAssumption that th e people of each of theseStates shall have no constitution, except suchas may be arbltrararUy dictated by Congress,an d formed under th e restraint of m1l1taryrule. A plain statement of facts makes thisevident.eral Records of th e United States, G.S.A.National Archives an d Records Service.

so 14 Stat. p. 814.B1 House Journal, 37th Congress, 1s t Sessn.p. 123 etc.... Senate Journal, 37th Congress, 1s t Sessn.p. 91 etc.33 13 Stat. 763. 14 Stat. p. 811... 14 Stat. 814... House Journal, 39th Congress, 2n d Sessn.p. 563 etc.

"I n all these States there are existing con;.stltutlons, framed in th e accustomed way byth e people. Congress, however, declares thatthese constitutions are no t 'loyal an d republican,' an d requires th e people to form themanew. What, then, in th e opinion of Congress, is necessary to make th e constitutionof a State 'loyal and republican?' Th e originalac t answers th e question: 'I t Is universalnegro sulfrage, a question which th e federalConstitution leaves exclusively to th e Statesthemselves. All this legislative machinery ofmartial law, m1l1tary coerCion, an d politicaldisfranchisement Is avowedly for that purpose an d none other. Th e existing constitutions of th e te n States conform to the ac knowledged standards of loyalty an d republicanism. Indeed, I f there are degrees In re publican forms of government, their constitutions are more republican now, than whenthese States-four of which were membersof th e original thirteen-first became members of the Union."In President Andrew Johnson's Veto message on th e Reconstruction Act on July 19,1867,37 he pointed ou t various unconstltutlonalltles as follows:"The veto of th e original b1l1 of th e 2d ofMarch was based on two distinct grounds.th e Interference of Congress in mattersstrictly appertaining to the reserved powersof th e States, an d th e establishment of m1l1-tary tribunals for th e trial of citizens In timeof peace.". "A singular contradiction Is apparent here.Congress declares these local State governments to be illegal governments, an d thenprovides that these 111egal governments shallbe carried on by federal Officers, who are toperform th e very duties on Its own officersby th1.s illegal State authority. It certainlywould be a novel spectacle If Congress shouldattempt to carryon a legal State governmentby th e agency of Its own officers. It is ye tmore strange that Congress attempts to sustain an d carry on an 1l1egal State government by th e same federal agency.". "I t Is now too late to say that these te npolitical communities are no t States of thisUnion. Declarations to the contrary made inthese three acts are contradicted again an dagain by repeated acts of legislation enacted

by Congress from th e year 1861 to th e year1867."During that period, While these Stateswere in actual rebell1on, and after that re bell10n was brought to a close, they havebeen again and again recognized as Statesof th e Union. Representation has been apportioned to them as States. They have been di vided Into judicial distriCts for th e holdingof district an d circuit courts of th e UnitedStates, as States of th e Union only can bedlstrlcted. The last act on this subject waspassed July 23, 1866. by which everyone ofthese te n States was arranged Into districtsan d circuits."They have been called upon by Congressto ac t through their legislatures upon atleast two amendments to the Constitution ofth e United States. As States they have ratified one amendment, which required th evote of twenty-seven States of th e thlrtysix then composing th e Union. When th erequisite twenty-seven votes were given Infavor of that amendment-seven of whichvotes were given by seven of these te nStates--It was proclaimed to be a part ofth e Constitution of th e United States, an dslavery was declared no longer to exist withinth e United States or an y place subject totheir jurisdiction. If these seven States wereno t legal States of th e Union, It follows asan inevitable consequence that in some ofth e States slavery ye t exists. I t does no t exist

17 40th Congress, 1s t Sessn. House Journalp. 232 etc.

June 13, 1967 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE 15643Virginia rejected th e 14th Amendment onJanuary 9, 1867.19Louisiana rejected th e 14th Amendmenton February 6, 1867.'"Delaware rejected th e 14th Amendment onFebruary 7, 1867.21Maryland rejected tho 14th Amendment onMarch 23, 1867.22Mississippi rejected th e 14th Amendmenton January 31, 1867.23Ohio rejected th e 14th Amendment onJanuary 15, 1868."New Jersey rejected th e 14th Amendmenton March 24, 1868."There was no question that all of th eSouthern states which rejected th e 14thAmendment ha d legally constituted governments, were fully recognized by th e federalgovernment, an d were functioning as membe r states of th e Union at th e time of theirrejection.President Andrew Johnson, in hi s Vetomessage of March 2, 1867,20 pointed ou t that:"It is no t denied that the States in question have each of them an actual government with all th e powers, executive, judicialan d legislative, which properly belong to afree State. They are organized like th e otherStates of th e Union, and, like them, theymake, administer, an d execute th e lawswhich concern their domestic affairs."If further proof were needed that theseStates were operating under legally constituted governments as member States in the

Union, th e ratification of th e 13th Amendment by December 8, 1865 undoubtedly supplies this official proof. If th e SouthernStates were no t member States of th e Union,th e 13th Amendment would no t have beensubmitted to their Legislatures for ratification.2. Th e 13th Amendment to th e UnitedStates Constitution was proposed by JointResolution of Congress7 an d was approvedFebruary 1, 1865 by President Abraham Lincoln, as required by Article I, Section 7 of th eUnited States Constitution. The President'ssignature Is affixed to the Resolution.Th e 13th Amendment was ratified by 27states of the then 36 states of th e Union,Including th e Southern States of Virginia,Louisiana, Arkansas, South Carolina, Alabama, North Carolina an d Georgia. This Isshown by th e Proclamation of th e Secretaryof State December 18, 1965.28 Without th evotes of these 7 Southern State Legislaturesth e 13th Amendment would have faUed.There ca n be no doubt but that th e ratification by these 7 Southern States of th e 13thAmendment again established th e fact thattheir Legislatures and State governmentswere duly and lawfully constituted and functioning as such under their State Constitutions.3. Furthermore, on April 2, 1866, PresidentAndrew Johnson Issued a proclamation that,"the insurrection which heretofore existedIn th e States of Georgia, South CarOlina, Virginia, North CarOlina, Tennessee, Alabama,LouiSiana, Arkansas, Mississippi an d FloridaIs at an end, an d Is henceforth to be so regarded." 29

,. House Journal 1866-1867, p. 108-SenateJournal 1866-1867, p. 101.20 McPherson, Reconstruction, p. 194; An-nual Encyclopedia, p. 452.

21 House Journal 1867, p. 223-Senate Jour-na l 1867, p. 176.22 House Journal 1867. p. 1141-SenateJournal 1867, p. 808.23 McPherson, Reconstruction, p. 194... House Journal 1868, pp. 44-50-senateJournal 1868, pp. 33-38... Minutes of th e Assembly 1868, p. 743-Senate Journal 1868, p. 356.,. House Journal, 39th Congress, 2nd Ses-sion. p. 563 etc.27 13 Stat. p. 567.28 13 Stat. p. 774... Presidential Proclamation No. 153. Gen-

CXIII - -986-Par t 12

On August 20, 1866, President AndrewJohnson Issued another proclamation 30pointing out the fact that th e House of Representatives an d Senate had adopted Identical Resolutions on July 22nd al. an d July25th, 1861,82 that th e Clv1l War forced bydisunionists of the Southern States, was no twaged for th e purpose of conquest or tooverthrow th e rights an d established institutions of those States. bu t to defend an dmaintain th e supremacy of th e Constitutionan d to preserve th e Union with all equalityan d rights of th e several states unimpaired,an d that as soon as these objects are accomplished, th e war ought to cease. The President's proclamation on June 13, 1865, declared th e insurrection In th e State of Tennessee ha d been suppressed.s Th e President's proclamation on April 2, 1866,'" declared th e Insurrection In th e other Souther n States, except Texas, no longer existed.On August 20, 1866,35 th e President proclaimed that th e Insurrection in the State ofTexas had been completely ended; an d hisproclamation continued: "the InsurrectionWhich heretofore existed In th e State ofTexas Is at an end, an d Is to be henceforthso regarded In that State, as In th e otherStates before named In which th e said Insurrection was proclaimed to be at an en dby th e aforesaid proclamation of th e secondday of Apr1l, one thousand, eight hundredan d sixty-six."And I do further proclaim that th e saidinsurrection Is at an end, an d that peace,order, tranqu1l1ty, an d civil authority nowexist, In and throughout th e whole of th eUnited States of America."4. When th e State of Louisiana rejectedth e 14th Amendment on February 6, 1867,making th e 10th state to have rejected th esame, or more than one-fourth of th e totalnumber of 36 states of th e Union as of thatdate, thus leaving less than three-fourths ofth e states possibly to ratify th e same, th eAmendment fa1led of ratification in fact an din law, and It could no t have been revivedexcept by a new Joint Resolution of th eSenate an d House of Representatives Inaccordance with Constitutional reqUirement.5. Faced with th e positive failure of ratification of th e 14th Amendment, both Housesof Congress passed over th e veto of th e President three Acts known as ReconstructionActs, between th e dates of March 2 an dJuly 19, 1867, especially the third of saidActs, 15 Stat. p. 14 etc., designed illegallyto remove with "Military force" th e lawfullyconstituted State Legislatures of th e 10Southern States of Virginia, North Carolina,South CarOlina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama,Mississippi, Arkansas, Louisiana an d Texas.In President Andrew Johnson's Veto messageon th e Reconstruction Act of March 2, 1867,"he pointed ou t these unconstltutlonal1ties:

" I f ever th e American citizen should beleft to th e free exercise of hi s own jUdgment,it is when he Is engaged In th e work of formin g th e fundamental law under which he Isto live. That work Is hi s work, an d it canno t properly be taken ou t of his hands. Allthis legislation proceeds upon th e contraryAssumption that th e people of each of theseStates shall have no constitution, except suchas may be arbltrararUy dictated by Congress,an d formed under th e restraint of m1l1taryrule. A plain statement of facts makes thisevident.eral Records of th e United States, G.S.A.National Archives an d Records Service.

so 14 Stat. p. 814.B1 House Journal, 37th Congress, 1s t Sessn.p. 123 etc.... Senate Journal, 37th Congress, 1s t Sessn.p. 91 etc.33 13 Stat. 763. 14 Stat. p. 811... 14 Stat. 814... House Journal, 39th Congress, 2n d Sessn.p. 563 etc.

"I n all these States there are existing con;.stltutlons, framed in th e accustomed way byth e people. Congress, however, declares thatthese constitutions are no t 'loyal an d republican,' an d requires th e people to form themanew. What, then, in th e opinion of Congress, is necessary to make th e constitutionof a State 'loyal and republican?' The originalac t answers th e question: 'I t Is universalnegro sulfrage, a question which th e federalConstitution leaves exclusively to th e Statesthemselves. All this legislative machinery ofmartial law, m1l1tary coerCion, an d politicaldisfranchisement Is avowedly for that purpose an d none other. Th e existing constitutions of th e te n States conform to th e ac knowledged standards of loyalty an d republicanism. Indeed, I f there are degrees In re publican forms of government, their constitutions are more republican now, than whenthese States-four of which were membersof th e original thirteen-first became members of the Union."In President Andrew Johnson's Veto message on th e Reconstruction Act on July 19,1867,37 he pointed ou t various unconstltutlonalltles as follows:"The veto of th e original b1l1 of th e 2d ofMarch was based on two distinct grounds.th e Interference of Congress in mattersstrictly appertaining to the reserved powersof th e States, an d th e establishment of m1l1-tary tribunals for th e trial of citizens In timeof peace.". "A singular contradiction Is apparent here.Congress declares these local State governments to be illegal governments, an d thenprovides that these 111egal governments shallbe carried on by federal Officers, who are toperform th e very duties on Its own officersby th1.s illegal State authority. It certainlywould be a novel spectacle If Congress shouldattempt to carryon a legal State governmentby th e agency of Its own officers. It is ye tmore strange that Congress attempts to sustain an d carry on an 1l1egal State government by th e same federal agency.". "I t Is now too late to say that these te npolitical communities are no t States of thisUnion. Declarations to the contrary made inthese three acts are contradicted again an dagain by repeated acts of legislation enacted

by Congress from th e year 1861 to th e year1867."During that period, While these Stateswere in actual rebell1on, and after that re bell10n was brought to a close, they havebeen again and again recognized as Statesof th e Union. Representation has been apportioned to them as States. They have been di vided Into judicial distriCts for th e holdingof district an d circuit courts of th e UnitedStates, as States of th e Union only can bedlstrlcted. The last act on this subject waspassed July 23, 1866. by which everyone ofthese te n States was arranged Into districtsan d circuits."They have been called upon by Congressto act through their legislatures upon atleast two amendments to the Constitution ofth e United States. As States they have ratified one amendment, which required th evote of twenty-seven States of th e thlrtysix then composing th e Union. When th erequisite twenty-seven votes were given Infavor of that amendment-seven of whichvotes were given by seven of these te nStates--It was proclaimed to be a part ofth e Constitution of th e United States, an dslavery was declared no longer to exist withinth e United States or an y place subject totheir jurisdiction. If these seven States wereno t legal States of th e Union, It follows asan inevitable consequence that in some ofth e States slavery ye t exists. I t does no t exist

17 40th Congress, 1s t Sessn. House Journalp. 232 etc.


5/7

15644 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE June 13, 1967in these seven States, for they have abolishedi t also In their State constitutions; but Kentucky no t having done so, It would still remain in that State. But, In truth, I f thisassumption that these States have no legalState governments be true, then the abolition of slavery by these l11egal governmentsbinds no one, for Congress now denies tothese States th e power to abolish slavery bydenying to them the power to elect a legalState legislature, or to frame a constitutionfor any purpose, even for such a purpose asth e abol1t1on of slavery.

"As to the other constitutional amendment having reference to suffrage, It happens that these States have no t acceptedit . The consequence Is, that It has never beenproclaimed or understood, even by Congress,to be a part of th e Constitution of th e UnitedStates. The Senate of th e United States hasrepeatedly given Its sanction to the appointment of judges, district attorneys, an dmarshals for everyone of these States; yet,i ! they are no t legal States, no t one of thesejudges Is authorIzed to hold a court. So, too,both houses of Congress have passed approprIation bills to pay all these judges, at torneys, an d officers of th e United States forexercising their functions In these States.Again, In th e machinery of th e Internal revenue laws, all these States are dlstrlcted,no t as 'TerrItories,' but as 'States.'"So much for continuous legislative recognition. Th e Instances cited, however, fall fa rshort of all that might be enumerated.Executive recognition, as Is well known, ha sbeen frequent and unwavering. Th e samemay be said as to judicial recognitionthrough th e Supreme Court of th e UnitedStates.". "To me these considerations are conclusiveof th e unconstitutionality of this part of th ebill now before me, an d I earnestly commendtheir conSideration to th e deliberate judgment of Congress. [And now to the Court.]"Within a period less than a year th e legislation of Congress has attempted to strip th eexecutive department of th e government ofsome of Its essential powers. Th e Constitution, an d th e oath provided In It, devolveupon th e PresIdent th e power an d duty tosee that th e laws are faithfully executed.Th e Constitution, In order to carry out thispower, gives him the choice of th e agents,an d makes them subject to his control an dsupervision. But In th e execution of theselaws th e constitutional obl1gatlon upon th ePresident remains, but th e powers to exercise that constitutional duty Is effectuallytaken away. Th e m!lltary commander Is, asto the power of appointment, made to taketh e place of It s President, and the Generalof th e Army th e place of th e Senate; an d anyattempt on th e part of th e President to asserthIs own constitutional power may, underpretence of law, be met by official insubordination. I t Is to be feared that these mlI!taryOfficers, looking to th e authorIty given bythese laws rather than to th e letter of th eConstitutIon, wl11 recognize no authority bu tth e commander of th e dIstrict and the General of th e army.

"If there were no other objectIon than thisto this proposed legislation, It would besufficient."No one can contend that th e Reconstruction Acts were ever upheld as being val1d an dconstitutional.They were brought Into question, but th eCourts either avoided decision or were prevented by Congress from finally adjudicatIngupon their constltutlonal1ty.In Mississippi v. President Andrew Johnson, (4 Wall. 475-502), where the suIt soughtto enjoin th e President of th e United Statesfrom enforcing provIsions of th e Reconstruction Acts, th e U.S. Supreme Court held thatth e President cannot be enjoined because forth e Judicial Department of th e governmentto attempt to enforce th e performance of

th e duties by th e President might be justlycharacterized, In th e language of ChIef Justice Marshall, as "a n absurd and excessiveextravagance." The Court further saId thatI f th e Court granted th e Injunction againstenforcement of th e Reconstruction Acts, an dI f th e PresIdent refused obedIence, It Is needless to observe that th e Court Is wIthoutpower to enforce Its process.In a joint action, th e states of Georgiaan d MissIssippi brought suit against th ePresIdent an d th e Secretary of War, (6 Wall.50-78,154U.S.554).

Th e Court saId that:"The bill then sets forth that th e Intentan d design of th e Acts of Congress, as ap parent on thler face an d by their terms, areto overthrow an d annul thIs existing stategovernment, an d to erect another an d different government In Its place, unauthorIzed by th e Constitution and in defiance ofIts guaranties; an d that, in furtherance ofthis Intent an d design, th e defendants, th eSecretary of War, th e General of th e Army,an d Major-General Pope, actIng under ordersof th e President, are about setting in motion a portion of th e army to take m!l!tarypossession of th e state, and threaten to subvert her government and subject her peopleto m!l!tary rule; that the state Is holdingInadequate means to resist th e power an dforce of th e Executive Department of th eUnited States; an d she therefore Insists thatsuch protection can, and ought to be affordedby a decree or order of his court In th epremises."Th e applications for injunction by thesetwo states to prohibit th e Executive Department from carrying ou t th e provisions ofth e Reconstruction Acts directed to th e overthrow of their government, Including thisdissolution of their state legislatures, weredenied on the grounds that th e organizationof th e government Into three great departments, th e executive, legislative an d judicial,carried limitations of th e powers of each byth e Constitution. This case when th e sameway as th e previous case of Mississippiagainst President Johnson an d was dismissedwithout adjudicating upon th e constitutionality of th e Reconstruction Acts.In another case, ex parte William H. McCardle (7 Wall. 506-515), a petition for th ewrit of habeas corpus for unlawful restraintby ml!!tary force of a citizen no t In th emll1tary service of th e United States wasbefore th e United States Supreme Court.After th e case was argued an d taken underadvisement, an d before conference In re gard to th e deCision to be made, Congresspassed an emergency Act, (Act March 27,1868, 15 Stat. at L. 44), vetoed by th ePresident an d repassed over his veto, re pealing th e jurisdiction of th e U.S. SupremeCourt in such case. Accordingly, th e SupremeCourt dismissed th e appeal without passingupon th e constltutlonal1ty of th e Reconstruction Acts, under which th e non-ml!!tarycitizen was held by th e ml!!tary withoutbenefit of writ of habeas corpus, In violation of Section 9, Article I of th e U.S. Constitution which prohibits th e suspension ofth e writ of habeas corpus.That Act of Congress placed th e Reconstruction Acts beyond judicial recourse an davoided tests of constitutIonality.It Is recorded that one of th e SupremeCourt Justices, Grier, protested against th eaction of th e Court as follows:"This case was fully argued In th e beginning of this month. It Is a case whIch Involves th e liberty an d rights, no t only ofth e appellant but of. millions of ou r fellowcItIzens. The country and th e parties ha da right to expect that It would receive th eImmediate an d solemn attention of th ecourt. By th e postponement of this case weshall subject ourselves, whether justly orunjustly, to th e Imputation that we haveevaded th e performance of a duty Imposed

on us by th e Constitution, an d waited forLegislative InterpOSition to supersede ou raction, an d relieve us from responsib1llty.I am no t wllllng to be a partaker of th eeulogy or opprobrium that may follow. Ican only say . . . I am ashamed that suchopprobrium should be cast upon th e courtan d that It cannot be refuted."Th e te n States were organized Into Mil!taryDistricts under th e unconstitutional "Reconstruction Acts," their lawfully constitutedLegislature Illegally were removed by "mil!tary force," and they were replaced by rump,so-called Leglslature3, seven of which carrIedou t m1lltary orders an d pretended to ratifyth e 14th Amendment, as follows:Arkansas on Aprll 6, 1868;38North Carolina on July 2,1868;""Florida on June 9, 1868; >LouIsIana on July 9,1868;41South Carolina on July 9, 1868;40Alabama on July 13, 1868;'3 an d Georgiaon July 21, 1868 ...6. Of th e above 7 States whose Legislatureswere removed an d replaced by rump, socalled Legislatures, six (6) Legislatures of th estates of Louisiana, Arkansas, South Carolina, Alabama, North CarOlina an d Georgiaha d ratIfied th e 13th Amendment, as shownby th e Secretary of State's Proclamation ofDecember 18, 1865, without which 6 States'ratifications, th e 13th Amendment could no tan d would no t have been ratified because said6 States made a total of 27 ou t of 36 Statesor exactly three-fourths of th e number requIred by Article V of th e Constitution forratification.Furthermore, governments of th e Statesof Louisiana an d Arkansas ha d been re-established under a Proclamation Issued by President Abraham Lincoln December 8, 1863.'Th e government of North Carolina ha dbeen re-establlshed under a ProclamationIssued by President Andrew Johnson datedMay 29, 1865.'Th e government of Georgia ha d been reestablished under a proclamation Issued byPresident Andrew Johnson dated June 17,1865.'7Th e government of Alabam,a ha d been reestablished under a Proclamation Issued byPresident Andrew Johnson dated June 21,1865."The government of South Carolina' hadbeen re-establlshed under a Proclamationissued by President Andrew Johnson datedJune 30, 1865 .. These three "Reconstruction Acts" O. underwhich th e above State Legislatures were 11-legally removed an d unlawful rump or puppe t so-called Legislatures were substitutedIn a mock effort to ratify th e 14th amendment, were unconstitutional, null and VOid,ab Initio, an d all acts done thereunder werealso null an d void, Including th e purportedratification of th e 14th Amendment by said6 Southern puppet State Legislatures of

38 McPherson, Reconstruction, p. 53.30 House Journal 1868, p. 15, Senate Journal1868, p. 15. House Journal 1868, p. 9, Senate Journal1868, p. 8.n Sena e Journal 1868, p. 21.42 House Journal 1868, p. 50, Senate Journa l 1868, p. 12. Senate Journal, 40th Congress, 2n dSessn. p. 725... House Journal, 1868, p. 50. Vol. I, pp. 288-306; Vol. II , pp. 1429-1448-"The Federal an d State Constitutions," etc., compiled under Act of Congress on June 30, 1906, Francis NewtonThorpe, Washington Government printingOffice (1906)... Same, Thorpe, Vol. V, pp. 2799-2800.


6/7

June 13, 1967 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE 15645Arkansas, North Carolina, Louisiana, SouthCarolina, Alabama an d Georgia.Those Reconstruction Acts of Congress an dall acts an d things unlawfully done thereunder were in violation of Article IV, Sec-tion 4 of th e United States Constitution,which required th e United States to guar_antee every State in the Union a republica n form of government. They violated Article I, Section 3, an d Article V of the Con-stitution, which entitled every State in theUnion to two Senators, because under provisions of these unlawful Acts of Congress,10 States were deprived of having two Senators, or equal suffrage in th e Senate.7. Th e Secretary of State expressed doubtas to whether three-fourths of th e requiredstates ha d ratified th e 14th Amendment, asshown by his Proclamation of July 20, 1868."Promptly on July 21, 1868, a Joint Resolution 62 was adopted by th e Senate an d Houseof Representatives declaring that threefourths of th e several States of th e Union hadratified th e 14th Amendment. That resolution, however, Included purported ratifications by th e unlawful puppet Legislatures of6 States, Arkansas, North CarOlina, Louisiana,South Carolina an d Alabama, which ha d previously rejected th e 14th Amendment by action of their lawfully constituted Legisla-tures, as above shown. This Joint Resolutionassumed to perform the function of th e Sec-retary of State in whom Congress, by Act ofApril 20, 1818, ha d vested th e function ofissuing such proclamation declaring th e ratification of Constitutional Amendments.Th e Secretary of State bowed to th e actionof Congress an d Issued his Proclamation ofJuly 28, 1868,62 in which he stated that hewas acting under authority of th e Act ofApril 20, 1818, bu t pursuant to said Resolution of July 21, 1868. He listed three-fourthsor so of th e then 37 states as having ratifiedth e 14th Amendment, Including the purported ratification of the unlawful puppetLegislatures of th e States of Arkansas, NorthCarolina, Louisiana, South Carolina an d Ala-bama, Without said 6 unlawful purportedratifications there would hiwe been only 26states left to ratify ou t of 37 when a minimu m of 28 states was required for ratificationby three-fourths of th e States of the Union.Th e Joint Resolution of Congress an d th eresulting Proclamation of th e Secretary ofState also included purported ratifications byth e States of Ohio an d New Jersey, rtlthoughth e Proclamation recognized the fact thatth e Legislatures of said states, several monthspreviously, ha d withdrawn their ratificationsan d effectively rejected the 14th Amendmentin January, 1868, an d April, 1868.Therefore, deducting these two states fromth e purported ratifications of th e 14thAmendment, only 23 State ratifications atmost could be claimed; whereas th e ratification of 28 States, or three-fourths of 37States in th e Union, were required to ratifyth e 14th Amendment.From al l of th e above documented historicfacts, It Is Inescapable that th e 14th Amendment never was validly adopted as an articleof th e Constitution, that it has no legaleffect, an d It should be declared by th eCourts to be unconstitutional, an d thereforenUll, void an d of no effect.TH E CONSTITUTION STRIKES TH E 14TH AMEND

MENT wrrH NULLITYTh e defenders of th e 14th Amendmentcontend that th e U.S. Supreme Court ha sfinally decided upon its validity. Such Is no tth e case.In what Is considered th e leading case,Coleman v. Miller, 307 U.S. 448, 69 S. Ct. 972,th e U.S. Supreme Court did no t uphold th evalidity of th e 14th Amendment.Gl 16 Stat. p. 706.62 House Journal, 40th Congress, 2nd Sessn.p. 1126 etc.62 16 Stat. p. 708.

In that case, th e Court brushed asideconstitutional questions as though they didno t exist. For Instance, th e Court made th estatement that:"The legislatures of Georgia, North Carolina and South Carolnla ha d rejected th eamendment In November an d December,1866. New governments were erected in thoseStates (and in others) under th e directionof Congress. Th e new legislatures ratifiedth e amendment, that of North Carolina onJuly 4, 1868, that of South Carolina onJuly 9, 1868, an d that of Georgia on July 21,1868."And th e Court gave no consideration to th efact that Georgia, North Carolina and SouthCarOlina were three of th e original states ofth e Union with valid an d existing constitutions on an equal footing With th e otheroriginal states an d those later admitted Intoth e Union.What constitutional right did Congresshave to remove those state governments an dtheir legislatures under unlawful militarypower se t up by th e unconstitutional "Reconstruction Acts," which ha d for their purpose,th e destruction an d removal of these legalstate governments and th e null1fication oftheir Constitutions?The fact that these three states an d sevenother Southern States had existing Constitu_tions, were recognized as states of th e Union,again and again; ha d been divided into judicial districts for holding their district an dcircuit courts of th e United States; ha d beencalled upon by Congress to act through theirlegislatures upon two Amendments, th e 13than d 14th, an d by their ratifications ha d actually made possible th e adoption of the 13thAmendment; as well as their state governments having been re-established underPresidential Proclamations, as shown byPresident Andrew Johnson's Veto messagean d proclamations, were al l brushed asideby th e Court in Coleman by th e statementthat: " ~ e w governments were erected inthose States (and In others) under the direction of Congress," an d that these new leg-islatures ratified th e Amendment.The U.S. Supreme Court overlooked thatIt previously ha d held that at no time werethese Southern States out of th e Union.White v. Hart, 1871, 13 Wall. 646, 654.In Coleman, the Court did no t adjUdicateupon th e Invalidity of th e Acts of Congresswhich set aside those state Constitutions an dabolished their state leglslatures,-the Courtsimply referred to the fact that their legallyconstituted legislatures ha d rejected th e 14thAmendment an d that th e "new legislatures"ha d ratified th e Amendment.The Court overlooked th e fact, too, thatth e State of Virginia was also one of th eoriginal states with It s Constitution and Leg-islatUre in full operation under its civilgovernment at th e time.The Court also Ignored th e fact that th eother six Southern States, which were giventh e same treatment by Congress under th eunconstitutional "Reconstruction Acts", al lha d legal constitutions an d a republicanform of government in each state, as wasrecognized by Congress by Its admission ofthose states Into th e Union. The Court certainly must take judicial cognizance of th efact that before a new state is admitted byCongress Into th e Union, Congress enaots anEnabling Act to enable th e inhabitants ofth e territory to adopt a Constitution to se tup a republican form of government as acondition precedent to the admission of th estate Into th e Union, and upon approval ofsuch Constitution, Congress then passes th eAct of Admission of such state.All this was ignored an d brUShed asideby th e Court 1D th e Coleman case. However,In Coleman th e Court inadvertently saidthis:"Whenever official notice Is received at th eDepartment of State that any amendmentproposed to th e Constitution of th e United

States has been adopted, according to th eprovisions of th e Constitution, th e Secretaryof State shall forthwith cause th e amendment to be published, with his certificate,specifying th e States by which th e same mayhave been adopted, an d that th e same ha sbecome valid, to al l Intents and purposes, asa part of th e Constitution of th e UnitedStates."In Hawke v. Smith, 1920, 253 U.S. 221, 40 S.Ct. 227, th e U.S. Supreme Court unmistakablyheld:"The fifth article Is a grant of authorityby th e people to Congress. The determination of the method of ratification is th eexercise of a national power specificallygranted by th e Constitution; that power Isconferred upon Congress, an d Is limited totwo methods, by action of th e Legislaturesof three-fourths of th e states, or conventions In a like number of states. Dodge v.Woolsey, 18 How. 331, 348, 16 L. Ed. 401. Th eframers of th e Constitution might haveadopted a different method. Ratificationmight have been left to a vote of th e people,or to some authority of government otherthan that selected. The language of the article is plain, an d admits of no doubt In it sIntrepretation. It Is no t th e function ofcourts or legislative bodies, national or state,to alter th e method whiCh th e Constitutionha s fixed."We submit that In none of th e cases, inwhich th e Court avoided th e constitutionalissues involved in th e composition of th eCongress which adopted th e Joint Resolutionfor th e 14th Amendment, did th e Court passupon th e constitutionality of th e Congresswhich purported to adopt th e Joint Resolution for th e 14th Amendment, with 80 Representatives an d 23 Senators, in effect,forcibly ejected or denied their seats an dtheir votes on the Joint Resolution proposing th e Amendment, In order to pass th esame by a two-thirds vote, as pointed ou t Inth e New Jersey Legislature Resolution onMarch 27, 1868.The constitutional requirements set forthIn Article V of th e Constitution permit th eCongress to propose amendments only whenever two-thirds of both houses shall deem itnecessarY,-that Is, two-thirds of bothhouses as then constituted without forcibleeJections.Such a fragmentary Congress also violatedth e constitutional reqUirements of Article Vthat no state, without its consent, shall bedeprived Of Its equal suffrage in th e Senate.There is no such thing as giving life to anamendment lllegally proposed or never legally ratified by three-fourths of th e states.There is no such thing as amendment bylaches; no such thing as amendment bywaiver; no such thing as amendment by acquiescence; an d no such thing as amendment by any other means whatsoever exceptth e means specified In Article V of th e Constitution Itself.

It does no t suffice to say that there havebeen hundreds of cases decided under th e14th Amendment to supply th e constitutionaldeficiencies In Its proposal or ratification asrequired by Article V. I f hundreds of litigantsdid no t question th e valldlty of th e 14thAmendment, or questioned th e same perfunctorily without submitting documentaryproof of th e facts of record which made it spurported adoption unconstitutional, theirfailure cannot change th e Constitution forth e millions In America. The same thing istrue of laches; th e same thing Is true ofacquiescence; th e same thing Is true of II Iconsidered court decisions.To ascribe constitutional life to an allegedamendment which never came Into beingaccordlng to specific methods laid down inArticle V cannot be done without doing vio-lence to Article V Itself. This is true, becauseth e only question open to the courts Iswhether th e alleged 14th Amendment became a part of th e Constitution through a

June 13, 1967 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE 15645Arkansas, North Carolina, Louisiana, SouthCarolina, Alabama an d Georgia.Those Reconstruction Acts of Congress an dall acts an d things unlawfully done thereunder were in violation of Article IV, Sec-tion 4 of th e United States Constitution,which required th e United States to guar_antee every State in the Union a republica n form of government. They violated Article I, Section 3, an d Article V of the Con-stitution, which entitled every State in theUnion to two Senators, because under provisions of these unlawful Acts of Congress,10 States were deprived of having two Senators, or equal suffrage in th e Senate.7. Th e Secretary of State expressed doubtas to whether three-fourths of th e requiredstates ha d ratified th e 14th Amendment, asshown by his Proclamation of July 20, 1868."Promptly on July 21, 1868, a Joint Resolution 62 was adopted by th e Senate an d Houseof Representatives declaring that threefourths of th e several States of th e Union hadratified th e 14th Amendment. That resolution, however, Included purported ratifications by th e unlawful puppet Legislatures of6 States, Arkansas, North CarOlina, Louisiana,South Carolina an d Alabama, which ha d previously rejected th e 14th Amendment by action of their lawfully constituted Legisla-tures, as above shown. This Joint Resolutionassumed to perform the function of th e Sec-retary of State in whom Congress, by Act ofApril 20, 1818, ha d vested th e function ofissuing such proclamation declaring th e ratification of Constitutional Amendments.Th e Secretary of State bowed to th e actionof Congress an d Issued his Proclamation ofJuly 28, 1868,62 in which he stated that hewas acting under authority of th e Act ofApril 20, 1818, bu t pursuant to said Resolution of July 21, 1868. He listed three-fourthsor so of th e then 37 states as having ratifiedth e 14th Amendment, Including the purported ratification of the unlawful puppetLegislatures of th e States of Arkansas, NorthCarolina, Louisiana, South Carolina an d Ala-bama, Without said 6 unlawful purportedratifications there would hiwe been only 26states left to ratify ou t of 37 when a minimu m of 28 states was required for ratificationby three-fourths of th e States of the Union.Th e Joint Resolution of Congress an d th eresulting Proclamation of th e Secretary ofState also included purported ratifications byth e States of Ohio an d New Jersey, rtlthoughth e Proclamation recognized the fact thatth e Legislatures of said states, several monthspreviously, ha d withdrawn their ratificationsan d effectively rejected the 14th Amendmentin January, 1868, an d April, 1868.Therefore, deducting these two states fromth e purported ratifications of th e 14thAmendment, only 23 State ratifications atmost could be claimed; whereas th e ratification of 28 States, or three-fourths of 37States in th e Union, were required to ratifyth e 14th Amendment.From al l of th e above documented historicfacts, It Is Inescapable that th e 14th Amendment never was validly adopted as an articleof th e Constitution, that it has no legaleffect, an d It should be declared by th eCourts to be unconstitutional, an d thereforenUll, void an d of no effect.TH E CONSTITUTION STRIKES TH E 14TH AMEND

MENT wrrH NULLITYTh e defenders of th e 14th Amendmentcontend that th e U.S. Supreme Court ha sfinally decided upon its validity. Such Is no tth e case.In what Is considered th e leading case,Coleman v. Miller, 307 U.S. 448, 69 S. Ct. 972,th e U.S. Supreme Court did no t uphold th evalidity of th e 14th Amendment.Gl 16 Stat. p. 706.62 House Journal, 40th Congress, 2nd Sessn.p. 1126 etc.62 16 Stat. p. 708.

In that case, th e Court brushed asideconstitutional questions as though they didno t exist. For Instance, th e Court made th estatement that:"The legislatures of Georgia, North Carolina and South Carolnla ha d rejected th eamendment In November an d December,1866. New governments were erected in thoseStates (and in others) under th e directionof Congress. Th e new legislatures ratifiedth e amendment, that of North Carolina onJuly 4, 1868, that of South Carolina onJuly 9, 1868, an d that of Georgia on July 21,1868."And th e Court gave no consideration to th efact that Georgia, North Carolina and SouthCarOlina were three of th e original states ofth e Union with valid an d existing constitutions on an equal footing With th e otheroriginal states an d those later admitted Intoth e Union.What constitutional right did Congresshave to remove those state governments an dtheir legislatures under unlawful militarypower se t up by th e unconstitutional "Reconstruction Acts," which ha d for their purpose,th e destruction an d removal of these legalstate governments and th e null1fication oftheir Constitutions?The fact that these three states an d sevenother Southern States had existing Constitu_tions, were recognized as states of th e Union,again and again; ha d been divided into judicial districts for holding their district an dcircuit courts of th e United States; ha d beencalled upon by Congress to act through theirlegislatures upon two Amendments, th e 13than d 14th, an d by their ratifications ha d actually made possible th e adoption of the 13thAmendment; as well as their state governments having been re-established underPresidential Proclamations, as shown byPresident Andrew Johnson's Veto messagean d proclamations, were al l brushed asideby th e Court in Coleman by th e statementthat: " ~ e w governments were erected inthose States (and In others) under the direction of Congress," an d that these new leg-islatures ratified th e Amendment.The U.S. Supreme Court overlooked thatIt previously ha d held that at no time werethese Southern States out of th e Union.White

Date post:	08-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	ven-geancia
View:	216 times
Download:	0 times

Record- WITH VOL COVER June13,1967-Citizen_is_dead

Documents