Thursday, January 14, 2016
RECONSTRUCTION REPLACEMENT GOVERNMENT - UNLAWFUL FEDERAL JURISDICTION
The Reconstruction Replacement Government
The strongest argument against the validity of the 14th Amendment is it violates the "Supremacy Clause" of the US Constitution article 6 paragraph 2 , which holds the Constitution Supreme law of the land. To create a different "citizen" "subject to" a different "jurisdiction" and a "different" form of government..And replace it with the one the Constitution created could be out right treason. All of which the 14th Amendment did without being properly ratified.
Did Congress Have to do Reconstruction in order to accomplish racial equality? And did it accomplish it? With a honest and open mind after reading the true facts about our history. The facts appear to show "No" to both questions.
According to Congressional Record June 13,1967, Judge Lander H. Perez, "congress could have amended the black (or all) race(s) to be a equal citizen with the white race". Page 15641 http://www.dirtyunclesam.com/Non_Ratification_14th_Amendment.pdf . That's what the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did. Basically the same thing. Why not then 96 years soon instead of Reconstruction?
But then our Constitution and Republic would not compromised. The "people" and "state" rights would not have gone to the same central form of government our framers did away with and replaced with Independent, sovereign state nation governments. Oh and we would have no (FAKE) National Debt to pay on every week, per 14th Amendment section 4.
The reconstruction Replacement government
The Reconstruction Acts of March 2, 1867, "to provide for the more efficient government of the rebel States," and the act supplementary thereto, passed March 23, 1867. Reconstruction Act' of March 2, 1867 (14 Stat. 428) at Section 5 reads:
" ... and when said State, by a vote of its legislature elected under said constitution (state), shall have adopted the amendment to the Constitution of the United States, proposed by the Thirty ninth Congress, and Known as article fourteen, and when said article shall have become a part of the Constitution of the United States, said State shall be declared"
First: To provide for the more efficient government in March of 1867 means to replace the one created by the Constitution in 1789. And they did just that and called it Reconstruction. The 14th Amendment gave us a different citizen subject to a different jurisdiction needed to accomplish this.
Second: This also mean's we should have two different governments for the fifty states. One for the 11 southern states and the Original government for the other states. All the other states usurped under the government they Unconstitutionally created and authorised for the 11 rebel states and they still operate under it;s jurisdiction today.
PUPPET STATE GOVERNMENTS ALLOWED TO REMAIN
An additional act of Reconstruction July 19, 1867 in part: http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=015/llsl015.db&recNum=47
The 10 said southern states Congress claimed to have no legal government: "and that thereafter said governments, if continued, were to be continued subject in all respects to the military commanders of the respective districts, and to the paramount authority of Congress".
"Sec.2. And it further enacted, That the commander of any district named in said act shall have power, subject to the disapproval of the General of the Army of the United States (Grant the next president),and to have effect till disapprove, whenever in the opinion of such commander the proper administration of said act shall require it, to suspend or remove from office, or from the performance of official duties and the exercise of official powers election, appointment or authority derived from, or granted by, or claimed under, any so-called State government thereof, or any municipal or other division thereof, and upon such suspension or removal such commander, subject to the disapproval of the General as aforesaid, shall have power to provide from time to time for the performance of said duties of such officer or person so subpoenaed or removed, by the detail of some competent officer or soldier of the army, or by the appointment of some other person, to perform the same, and to fill vacancies occasioned by death, resignation, or otherwise. " (Complete Overthrow)
The Original Non Corporate Constitutional Citizen Article 4 Section 2
The original non corporate Constitutional citizen known as a state citizen can be found at Article 4 section 2 U.S. Const. http://www.dirtyunclesam.com/constitution.pdf And referred to in Article 3 section 2 U.S. Const. The Reconstruction 14th Amendment citizen of the United States basically replaced the original Article 4 Section 2 Constitutional Citizen with a corporate one.
NOTE; The original Article 4 Section 2, state citizen was not a corporation. Bank of Augusta v. Earle 38 U.S. (13 Pet) 510, 10 L. Ed. 274 http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=38&invol=519
The Corporate 14th Amendment Reconstruction Replacement Citizen
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT Blacks Law Dictionary 5th Ed. Page 591 (in part). It became part of the Organic law July 28, 1868. It created or at least recognized for the first time a citizen of the United States as distinct of that of the State(ARTICLE 4 SEC.2 US CONSTITUTION ORIGINAL STATE CITIZEN).
In 1862, Congress redefined the meaning of the word PERSON to include the definition CORPORATION, AMONG OTHER THINGS. http://www.dirtyunclesam.com/Person-act.pdf and http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=012%2Fllsl012.db&recNum=490
In 1868, the 14th Amendment made all "PERSONS", "CITIZENS" of the "UNITED STATES", and "subject to" the "JURISDICTION" thereof.
That could be why the US Supreme Court says a "person" is a "corporation" within the meaning of the equal protection due process provision of the US Constitutions 14th Amendment.” Metropolitan Life Ins. v. Ward Ala. 470 U.S. 869, 105 S.Ct. 1676 at 1683, 84 L.Ed. 2d. 751. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=470&invol=869
Corporate Commercial Crimes
All crimes state or federal, are "commercial crimes”, says Code of Federal Regulation title 27, 72.11 http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/27/72.11
Blacks Law Dictionary 5th Ed. Page 306, "Corporate Citizenship" – Corporate status in the state of incorporation, though a foreign corporation is not a citizen for purposes of the privilege and Immunites Clause. U.S. Const. Article 4 Sec. 2 Bank of Augusta v. Earle, 38 US 519, 10 L. Ed. 274. https://law.resource.org/pub/us/case/reporter/US/38/38.US.519.html
Blacks Law Dictionary 5th Ed. Page 104," Artificial Persons" – Persons created and devised by human laws for the purpose of society and government, as distinguished from natural persons. Corporations are examples of artificial persons.
Corporate 14th Amendment "Subjects to"
"Subject To" (Blacks Law Dictionary, 5th edition, Page 1278)– Liable, subordinate, inferior, obedient to, governed or affected by; provided; answerable for. Homan v. Employers Reinsurance Corp. 345 Mo. 650, 136 S.W. 2nd.289, 302. https://casetext.com/case/homan-v-employers-reinsurance-corp
Corporate 14th Amendment "Jurisdiction"
"Jurisdiction" Blacks Law Dictionary 5th Ed. Page 766. - The word is a term of large and comprehensive import, and embraces every kind of judicial action. Federal land bank of Louisville v. Crombie , 258 Ky. 383 80 SW 2d 39,40. https://casetext.com/case/federal-land-bank-louisville-ky-v-crombie
It is the authority by which courts and judicial officers take cognizance of and decide cases. Board of Trustees of Firemen s relief and pension fund. City of Marietta v. Brooks 179 OKL. 600, 67 P. 2d 4,6. https://casetext.com/case/board-of-trustees-of-f-r-and-p-fund-v-brooks
State v. True, me. 330 A. 2d. 787. https://casetext.com/case/state-v-true-3 The legal right by which judges exercise their authority. Max Arms, Inc v. Barker, 293 Ky. 698, 170 S.W. 2d. 45,48. https://casetext.com/case/max-ams-inc-v-barker
Now your starting to see why many call this the "Reconstruction Replacement Government"? Just wait till you see the rest of the replacement government...
Corporate 14th Amendment National Debt (debt slaves)
The 14th Amendment section 4 CREATED the public or national debt for it's debt slaves. Oh and get this, the middle of this section 4 it says we have no RIGHT to question the validity of the public debt, and it comes out of our paycheck every week. This is why Obama claimed the 14th Amendment gives him the right to raise the debt ceiling. But what they in Washington did not come home and report back to the voters is this 14th Amendment is FAKE as the next paragraph will show.
Corporate 14th Amendment "Fraud" "Treason" "Misprison of Treason"
The 14th Amendment was not properly ratified. Congress knows this. Every member of Congress received a copy Congressional research service report in 2000 and an updated version every other year till 2012 . Order Code 98-611 GOV prepared for members and committees of Congress, http://www.dirtyunclesam.com/98-611.pdf
Page 5 of this report which is crs-2, top paragraph, makes clear that FAKE Executive Order 6 (Fake Presidential proclamation #11) ordered the 14th Amendment ratified. http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=015/llsl015.db&recNum=739
On the second page the Secretary of State expressed doubt as to whether three-fourths of the required states had ratified the 14th Amendment, shown by his Proclamation of July 20, 1868 (15 Statutes at Large, p. 706). Promptly on July 21, 1868 a Joint Resolution (House Journal, 40th Congress, 2nd Sessn. p. 1126 etc.) was adopted by the Senate and House of Representatives declaring that three-fourths of the several States of the Union had ratified the 14th Amendment. That resolution, however, included purported ratification by the unlawful puppet Legislatures of five (5) States, Arkansas, North Carolina, Louisiana, South Carolina, and Alabama, which had previously rejected the 14th Amendment by action of their lawfully constituted Legislatures, as above shown. This Joint Resolution assumed to perform the function of the Secretary of State in whom Congress, by Act of April 20, 1818, had vested the function of issuing such proclamation declaring the ratification of Constitutional Amendments.
Fake Executive Order 7 (Fake Presidential Proclamation #13) Ordered the 14th Amendment lawful and published. http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=015/llsl015.db&recNum=741
The Secretary of State (in FAKE E.O.#7 which is FAKE presidential proclamation #13) bowed to the action of Congress and issued his Proclamation of July 28, 1868, (15 Statutes at Large, p. 708) 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 (37) states as having ratified the 14th Amendment, including the purported ratification of the unlawful puppet Legislatures of the States of Arkansas, North Carolina, Louisiana, South Carolina, and Alabama. Without said five (5) unlawful purported ratification there would have been only 25 states left to ratify out of 37 when a minimum of 28 states was required for ratification by three-fourths of the States of the Union.
Both E.O. 6 and 7 never had the signature of the President Johnson (who gave two veto Addresses against this jurisdiction as Unconstitutional) Only the Secretary of State. So, these two fake executive orders are booked and paged as Presidential directives as the CRS report makes clear.
Note this CRS Report for Congress Order Code 98-611 GOV document was on the US State Departments site till about a year ago. Then the contents of this report was replaced with a totally different CRS Report. So I called the State Department and pointed this out and the CRS Reports with this order code disappeared as you can see Order Code 98-611 GOV Nov. 26 2008 as well as all the other years. http://fpc.state.gov/c24718.htm But you can still find the document still online at some University law library by typing in the order code plus .edu
The Joint resolution of Congress and the resulting Proclamation of the Secretary of State also included purported ratification 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 ratification and effectively rejected the 14th Amendment in January, 1868, and April, 1868.
Therefore, deducting these two states from the purported ratification of the 14th Amendment, only 23 State ratification at most could be claimed; whereas the ratification of 28 States, or three-fourths of 37 States in the Union, were required to ratify the 14th Amendment.
From all of the above documented historic facts, it is inescapable that the 14th Amendment never was validly adopted as an article of the Constitution, that it has NO LEGAL EFFECT, and it should be declared by the Courts to be unconstitutional, and therefore null, void, and of no effect.
Note: Proclamation #12 admitting the states under a newly established legislative bodies replaced the Constitutionally elected one. The states were blackmailed into ratifying the said 14th Amendment or be denied representation in Congress and remain under marshal law. http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=015/llsl015.db&recNum=741
Keep in mind the seated president at that time Andrew Johnson was against the 14th Amendment claiming it created a Unconstitutional de facto government as he pointed out in his veto address, http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llhj&fileName=064/llhj064.db&recNum=562&itemLink=r%3Fammem%2Fhlaw%3A%40field%28DOCID+%40lit%28hj0641%29%29%3ADe
"de facto government" Blacks Law dictionary 5th Ed. Page 375. “one that displays itself by a force against the will of the rightful legal government and is successful at least temporarily in overturning the institutions of the rightful legal government and setting up it’s own in lieu thereof. Wortham v. Walker 133 Tex. 255, 128 S.W.2d 1138,1145. https://casetext.com/case/wortham-v-walker
U.S. House Senate Judiciary Committee 1910
The Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments were not adopted in accordance to the U.S. Constitution
(THIS IS THE PERFECT COURT STYLE DEBATE FOR OUR SHOW HINT HINT)
In law it has been brought up as a judicial and political question. In all cases it has never been answered.. Examples H.J.Res. 165 March 21,22 1910. . herring before the Honorable T.U. Sisson of Mississippi the U.S. House Senate Judiciary Committee that the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments were not adopted in accordance to the U.S. Constitution. http://dirtyunclesam.com/the-validity-of-the-fourteenth-and-fifteenth-amendments-to-the-u-s-constitution/
In the hearing a factual showing was made that the 14th and 15th Amendments were not Constitutionally Adopted. The recommendations of the hearing was to forward a copy to the US Attorney General to Constitutional y test the 14th And 15th said Amendments to the US Const. The Attorney General did NOTHING.
Oath to support the Constitution ?
Taken in part from page 10 of the 1910 hearing above: "WE all love and respect the Constitution. We take an oath to support the Constitution. and there will be no lawyer that can successfully defend Article 5 and at the same moment contend that the 14th and 15th Amendments were legally passed, because if he does so contend, he must repeal the provisions of Article 5 in reference to the Amendments to the Federal Constitution".
"United States" this term has several meanings.
The 14th Amendment made us all citizens of the United States. The term "United States" has several meanings according to Blacks Law Dictionary 5th Ed page 1375 quoting the US Supreme Court" Hooven & Allison Co. V. Evatt, U.S. Ohio, APRIL 9, 1945. 324 U.S. 652, 65 S.Ct. 870, 880, 89 L.Ed. 1252. https://casetext.com/case/hooven-allison-co-v-evatt-v-8212-1944
The term 'United States' may be used in any one of several senses. It may be merely the name of a sovereign occupying the position analogous to that of other sovereigns in the family of nations. It may designate the territory(DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA) over which the sovereignty of the United States ex- [324 U.S. 652, 672] tends, or it may be the collective name of the states which are united by and under the Constitution.
Most of us have been citizens of the United States our entire life and have no idea which United State if any or all apply. After all the 14th Amendment makes it's "subjects" "subject to" the "jurisdiction " "thereof" all legal terms. And wow do things take on a whole new meaning when one's educated on the language used in the form "double" meaning words and "perverted" legal terms, and there meaning or meanings.
District of Columbia v. John R. Thompson Co., Inc., 346 U.S. 100 (1953)
Under Art. I, § 8, cl. 17 of the Federal Constitution, Congress had power to delegate its lawmaking authority to the Legislative Assembly of the municipal corporation created by the Organic Act of 1871 for the government of the District of Columbia. Pp. 346 U. S. 104-110.
(a) The power of Congress under Art. I, § 8, cl. 17 of the Constitution to grant self-government to the District of Columbia is as great as its authority to do so in the case of territories. Pp. 346 U. S. 106-107.
(b) The power of Congress over the District of Columbia relates not only to "national power," but to all the powers of legislation which may be exercised by a state in dealing with its affairs. P. 346 U. S. 108.
(c) The Constitution does not preclude delegation by Congress to the District of Columbia of full legislative power, subject to constitutional limitations to which all lawmaking is subservient and to the power of Congress at any time to revise, alter, or revoke the authority granted. Pp. 346 U. S. 108-109.
(d) In the provision of Art. I, § 8, cl. 17 of the Constitution, empowering Congress "To exercise exclusive Legislation" over the District of Columbia, the word "exclusive" was employed to eliminate any possibility that the legislative power of Congress over the District would be deemed concurrent with that of the ceding states, and it does not make the power nondetachable. Pp. 346 U. S. 109-110.
The history of congressional legislation dealing with the District of Columbia begins with the Act of July 16, 1790, 1 Stat. 130, by which the District was established as the permanent seat of the Government of the United States. We need not review for the purposes of this case the variety of congressional enactments pertaining to the management of the affairs of the District between that date and 1871. It is with the Organic Act of February 21, 1871, 16 Stat. 419, that we are particularly concerned.
§ 18. All acts of the Legislative Assembly were made subject at all times "to repeal or modification" by Congress. § 18. And it was provided that nothing in the Act should be construed to deprive Congress of "the power of legislation" over the District "in as ample manner as if this law had not been enacted." § 18. Executive power was vested in a governor appointed by the President by and with the advice of the Senate. § 2. And it was provided that the District should have in the House of Representatives an elected delegate having the same rights and privileges as those of delegates from federal territories. § 34.
"The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States. . . .
Metropolitan R. Co. v. District of Columbia, 132 the capacity of the District of Columbia to sue. The Court helUS.1 Decided October 21, 1889,
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/132/1/case.html presented the question of d that it might do so, noting that, while the District was "a separate political community," its sovereign power was lodged in the Congress.
"The subordinate legislative powers of a municipal character, which have been or may be lodged in the city corporations, or in the District corporation, do not make those bodies sovereign. Crimes committed in the District Page 346 U. S. 108 are not crimes against the District, but against the "United States". Therefore, while the District may, in a sense, be called a state, it is such in a very qualified sense."
The power of Congress over the District of Columbia relates not only to "national power," but to "all the powers of legislation which may be exercised by a state in dealing with its affairs." Atlantic Cleaners & Dyers v. United States, 286 U. S. 427, 286 U. S. 435. And see Stoutenburgh v. Hennick, supra, at 129 U. S. 147. There is no reason why a state, if it so chooses, may not fashion its basic law so as to grant home rule or self-government to its municipal corporations.
Barnes v. District of Columbia, 91 U. S. 540, 544,
That this entire control of the streets and avenues, with power to make all regulations which it should deem necessary for keeping the same in repair, was committed to the board of public works, not as a department or subordinate agency of the municipality called the District of Columbia, but as a Federal commission, is clearly shown by the legislation of Congress. Its members were appointed by the President of the United States, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. The acts of May 8, 1872 (17 Stat. 74), and March 3, 1873 (id. 499, 500), and sect. 76 of the Revised Statutes relating to the District of Columbia, providing for the salaries of the members of the board of public works and other officers of the District, enact that no part of the sums thereby appropriated shall be paid to any member of such board 'who shall hold any other Federal office,' or 'who is paid a salary for the discharge of the duties of any other Federal office, under the government of the United States.'
The act of June 20, 1874 (18 Stat. 116), abolishing the office of governor, secretary, board of public works, delegate in Congress, and also the legislative assembly, distinguishes between the accounting officers, other officials, laborers, employees, and the indebtedness of the District, and those of the board of public works. This distinction is also made by the acts of Congress of June 10, 1872 (17 Stat. 350, 351), April 20, 1871 (id. 7), Jan. 8, 1873 (id. 405, 406), and June 23, 1874 (18 id. 210).
The conclusion is thus reached, that by the act of Feb. 21, 1871, the entire control ever the streets and avenues, which are the "property of the United States", was given to a Federal commission, with exclusive power to make such regulations at it might deem necessary for keeping the same in repair.
"United States" Government of 1871 The Reconstruction Replacement Government
The Reconstruction Replacement "United States" Government was created by the 41st Congress Feb. 21,1871, Sess 3 Ch. A new "United States" "Jurisdiction" for the "New" "Reconstruction" "Citizen" of the United States. http://www.dirtyunclesam.com/United_States.pdf
and is a Federal Corporation says US Code title 28 USC 3002 15 (a). http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/3002
Note: The Constitution created a government in 1789. This Organic Act of 1871 created a government for the District of Columbia and incorporated it. This corporation was given all the powers not inconsistent with the "Constitution" and "laws" of the United States, which means consistent or double talk. Washington D.C. was already our nations capital since the Organic Act of 1801. http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=002/llsl002.db&recNum=140
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA V. JOHN R. THOMPSON CO., INC. 81 A.2d 249 (D.C. 1951) https://casetext.com/case/district-of-columbia-v-john-r-thompson-co#p255
"Art. 1, sec. 8, cl. 17 of the Federal Constitution providing that: "The Congress shall have Power * * * To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government"
June 11, 1878 An Act to providing a permanent form of government for the District of Columbia.
The "permanent seat of the Government of the "United States" SHALL continue to be designated as the District of Columbia.
Lawful Southern State Governments "Before" Reconstruction
Furthermore, governments of the States of Louisiana and Arkansas had been re-established under a Proclamation issued by President Abraham Lincoln on December 8, 1865
And where the president of the United States issued the following proclamations August 20, 1866 "Insurrection was declared at an end and that peace, order, tranquility and civil authority now existed in and throughout the whole of the United States"
Presidential Proclamation Sep. 7, 1867 as follows "The war then existing was not waged on the part of the Government in any spirit of oppression, nor for any purpose of conquest or subjugation, nor for the purpose of overthrowing or interfering with the rights or established institutions of the states, but to defend and maintain the supremacy of the Constitution and to preserve the Union with all the dignity, equality, and rights of the several states unimpaired, and that as soon as these and those objects should be accomplished this war ought to cease"
Third 13th Amendment and the Southern States
The 13th Amendment of the United States Constitution that abolished slavery was proposed by Joint Resolution of Congress, (13 Statutes at Large, p. 567) and was approved February 1, 1865 by President Abraham Lincoln, as required by Article I, Section 7 of the United States Constitution. The President’s signature is affixed to the Resolution. The 13th Amendment was ratified by 27 states of the then thirty-six (36) states of the Union, including the Southern States of Virginia, Louisiana, Arkansas, South Carolina, Alabama, North Carolina, and Georgia. This is shown by the Proclamation of the Secretary of State December 18, 1865. (13 Statutes at Large, p. 774.) Without the votes of these seven (7) Southern State Legislatures the 13th Amendment abolishing slavery would have failed. http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=013%2Fllsl013.db&recNum=804 .There can be no doubt but that the ratification by these seven (7) Southern States of the 13th Amendment again established the fact that their Legislatures and State governments were duly and lawfully constituted and functioning as such under their States Constitutions a year and half before. Never has any claims been made as to the validity of this 13th Amendment or the Southern state legislators that ratified it. Only when the 14th Amendment failed ratification did that mess start.
Of the above seven (7) States whose Legislatures re removed and replaced by rump, so-call Legislatures, six (6) Legislatures of the States of Louisiana, Arkansas, South Carolina, Alabama, North Carolina, and Georgia had ratified the 13th Amendment, as shown the Secretary of State's Proclamation of December 8, 1865. Without the six (6) States' Ratification, the 13th Amendment could not and would not have been ratified because said six (6) States made a total twenty-seven (27) out of thirty-six (36) States or exactly three-fourths of the states as required by Article V the U.S. Constitution for ratification.
Furthermore, governments of the States of Louisiana and Arkansas had been re-established under a Proclamation issued by President Abraham Lincoln on December 8, 1868. (Vol. I, pp. 288-306; Vol. II, pp. 1429-1448 — "The Federal and State Constitutions," etc., compiled under Act of Congress on June 30, 1906, Francis Newton Thorpe, Washington Government Printing Office, 906.)
Either the 3rd 13th Amendment is fake or the 14th Amendment is fake, both "can't" be real.
In fact the validity of the 3rd. 13th Amendment abolishing "involuntary" slavery rest on the fact it was ratified by lawful state governments. For Congress to say 6 months later that 10 of the southern states do not have lawful governments. There for there not entitled to representation in Congress. Specially in light of the fact the 3rd.13th Amendment would have failed ratification had not 7 of the 11 southern states voted to abolish slavery. Then 6 months later every thing was still fine till the southern states voted on the 14th Amendment and it failed ratification. So only then 10 of the 11 southern state governments were declared unlawful. Until such time as they passed "ratified" and adopted the 14th Amendment as a Constitutional Amendment. Total duress and blackmail making the 14th Amendment Null and void on this premise alone. Not counting the Constitutional violations involved.
The Three 13th Amendments in American History
In American History there are three 13th Amendments. The last in 1865 made involuntary slavery Unconstitutional. The first was a title of nobility Amendment of 1812. Lets talk about the second 13th Amendment a bit. The second was H.R. 80 to keep slavery as a state right. It was proposed just four years before the 13th Amendment, ending Involuntary Slavery in 1865. It would have secured slavery as a State Right (12 Stat. 251, 36th Congress, http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=012%2Fllsl012.db&recNum=282 .This proposed 13th Amendment was called the Corwin Amendment.
On February 28, 1861, the House of Representatives approved the Resolution by a vote of 133-65. On March 2, the United States Senate also adopted the Corwin Amendment with a vote of 24-12.
Since proposed Constitutional Amendment require a 2/3 majority vote, 132 votes were required in the House and 24 in the Senate. As seven Southern States had already decided to succeed from the Union, those states chose not to vote on the Corwin Amendment. Thus, showing a lot of the Northern support for this Pro-Slavery Amendment just weeks before the start of the Civil War.
It was then drafted by a committee chaired by Representative Thomas Corwin of Ohio. Its purpose was to persuade states that permitted Slavery that the Federal Government would not interfere with Slavery in places where it already existed. So, pursuant to Article V of the Constitution, consideration of the Corwin Amendment then shifted to the State Legislatures.
On May 13, 1861, the Ohio General Assembly became the first to ratify the Amendment. In January 1862, Maryland General Assembly was next to ratifying the Amendment. Later that year, Illinois approved the Amendment while they were sitting in session as a State Constitutional Convention rather than as a Legislature. Thus, causing some to see this particular ratification as possibly invalid. Note Ohio, Maryland, and Illinois were states that we are taught in history that fought to free the slaves. Plus look at the dates. All three states ratified this evil Amendment after the civil war had started on April 15, 1861. Moreover not one southern state has ever ratified it.
So, if the South had left the Union just because Slavery, then why would the Southern Political Forces that is then not plan to stay within the Union to support proposed Corwin 13th Amendment?
In Abraham Lincoln’s first Inaugural Address March 4, 1861, he supported the Corwin Amendment: “Holding such a provision to now be implied Constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable.” http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=mal&fileName=mal1/077/0773800/malpage.db&recNum=0
Then, just weeks prior to the outbreak of the Civil War, Lincoln even pinned a letter to each Governor asking for them to support the Corwin Amendment. http://www.lib.niu.edu/2006/ih060934.html .Quoted from the site
“The discovery of the newly inaugurated President Abraham Lincoln to the governor of Florida has generated renewed interest in Lincoln’s views toward slavery. The letter, found at the Le-high County Historical Society in Allentown, Pennsylvania, is a form letter from Lincoln to Governor Madison S. Perry transmitting “an authenticated copy” of a Joint Resolution to amend the Constitution of the United States On March 16, 1861, Lincoln sent the letter to all of the Governors of the States, supporting the Corwin Amendment including states that had already succeeded from the Union and formed their own Confederate Government".
Technically, the Corwin Amendment is still pending. It would need additional 35 or 36 ratification, depending on Illinois ratification, in order to become part of the Constitution.
Abraham Lincoln first address freeing the Slaves only when Lincoln was losing the war with the South he issued the Emancipation Proclamation, September 22, 1862, in the mid of war. Over a year after the Civil War started in April 15, 1861. This is where he established a purpose for the war and proclaimed that Slaves in the Nations of the Confederate States were free.
Mr. Lincoln’s statements of his first Inaugural Address, on March 4, 1861, around 41 days before the start of the Civil War: “I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of Slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so”. http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=mal&fileName=mal1/077/0773800/malpage.db&recNum=0
Abraham Lincoln’s letter to Horace Greeley, August 22, 1862, stated in part: “My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union”. http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/P?mal:85:./temp/~ammem_IxEn::
The 4th Lincoln and Douglas debate, August 21, 1858, (copy and paste) http://www.nps.gov/liho/learn/historyculture/debate1.htm
Lincoln stated: " My first impulse would be to free all the slaves, and send them to Liberia,-to their own native land. But a moment's reflection would convince me, that whatever of high hope, (as I think there is) there may be in this, in the long run, its sudden execution is impossible. If they were all landed there in a day, they would all perish in the next ten days; and there are not surplus shipping and surplus money enough in the world to carry them there in many times ten days. What then? Free them all, and keep them among us as underlings? Is it quite certain that this betters their condition? I think I would not hold one in slavery at any rate; yet the point is not clear enough to me to denounce people upon. What next? Free them, and make them politically and socially our equals? My own feelings will not admit of this; and if mine would, we well know that those of the great mass of white people will not. Whether this feeling accords with justice and sound judgment, is not the sole question, if, indeed, it is any part of it. A universal feeling, whether well or ill-founded, cannot be safely disregarded. We cannot, then,MAKE THEM(BLACKS) EQUALS. It does seem to me that systems of gradual emancipation might be adopted; but for their tardiness in this, I will not undertake to judge our brethren of the South".
"all I have ever said in regard to the institution of slavery and the black race. This is the whole of it, and anything that argues me into his idea of perfect social and political equality with the negro, is but a specious and fantastic arrangement of words, by which a man can prove a horse-chestnut to be a chestnut horse. [Laughter.] I will say here, while upon this subject, that I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so. I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and the black races. There is a physical difference between the two, which, in my judgment, will probably forever forbid their living together upon the footing of perfect equality, and inasmuch as it becomes a necessity that there must be a difference, I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position. I have never said anything to the contrary, but I hold that, notwithstanding all this, there is no reason in the world why the negro is not entitled to all the natural rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence, the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. [Loud cheers.] I hold that he is as much entitled to these as the white man. I agree with Judge Douglas he is not my equal in many respects-certainly not in color, perhaps not in moral or intellectual endowment. But in the right to eat the bread, without the leave of anybody else, which his own hand earns, he is my equal and the equal of Judge Douglas, and the equal of every living man. [Great applause.]"
The 14th Amendment made NO ONE Equal
So the 14th amendment didn’t make no one equal. Example After the said ratification of the 14th Amendment it took women another 50 years to gain a right to vote. It took Black folks 96 years till the civil rights act of 1964 to be said to be equal and end segregation. it took the black folks to stand up for themselves and protest and make the courts interpret the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment to mean equal rights. Now since the 14th Amendment all laws courts and government operate under the jurisdiction of the 14th Amendment. That means for the first 96 years the 14th amendment was said ratified. It’s jurisdiction enforced racist laws. And now to teach in school this 14th Amendment made us equal? What a LIE.The November 14, 1866 Florida House Journals 2d. Sess, 14th, Gen, Ass. page 3 of the pdf makes clear BEFORE Reconstruction Blacks were equal with whites in every area. It’s a shame after Reconstruction and the 14th Amendment it took Black folks 96 years to once again achieve this level of equality. http://www.dirtyunclesam.com/floridaHouse_Journal.pdf Also note the 1866 Tallahassee House Journal the then Florida representatives were saying they complied with every requirement with reentering the Union and they were still denied reputation.
The Reconstruction Replacement State Governments That Never Changed Back
Over a year after the "president" proclaimed the Civil War to be over Presidential Proclamation #153. And "ALL" states had a lawful and "PEACEFUL"government in place elected by the people they govern. Over the "objection" of President Johnson and "objections" of the southern states. Congress submitted the 14th Amendment to the states for ratification including the ten southern states said later not to have lawful governments. Both southern and northern states rejected the 14th Amendment. Lawful ratification failed.
Sections of the "Reconstruction Acts" of 1867 admit the "purpose" of the "acts" was to coerce the southern states into rescinding their vote rejection re-guarding the ratification of the 14th Amendment. And New Jersey and Ohio were denied the same right to with draw their vote for the 14th Amendment. An the other states that voted against the 14th Amendment got to keep their state governments.
Then the southern states was said not to have a lawful government. The ten that rejected the 14th Amend. that is. Each of the 10 southern states was forced to "RATIFY" the 14th and 15th Amendments as Constitutional Amendments or remain under military rule and denied representation in Congress and their lawful state governments removed. . Congress sold the 14th and 15th Amendments to the American people behind the front of granting the "colored people" the "right of suffrage" and "political rights" to hold public office.
Before Reconstruction Page 3 of the pdf , Nov. 1866 Tallahassee House Journal makes clear the "Freed ed people were made equal in every area of the law and rights with the white man. Its a shame it took 96 years till the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to once again reach this level of equality.
The ten States were organized into Military Districts under the unconstitutional "Reconstruction Acts," their lawfully constituted Legislatures illegally were removed by "military force," and they were replaced by rump, o-call Legislatures, seven of which carried out military orders and pretended to ratify the 14th Amendment, as follows:
An Act to admit the states of North Carolina, Louisiana, Georgia, Alabama, and Florida, to reputation in congress Sec.(1) "That each of the named states shall be entitled and admitted to representation in congress "when the legislatures of each state shall have duly ratified the amendment proposed by the 39th Congress known as article 14. http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=015/llsl015.db&recNum=106
Here is where "TEXAS" gave up the republic form of government guaranteed by Article 4 section 4 due to the 14th Amendment. An Act admitting Texas to Representation in Congress 41st Congress, Session 2,Chap. 39 March 30, 1870. Reads in part as follows. "Whereas the people of Texas have framed and adopted a constitution of state government which is republican; and where as the legislature of Texas elected under said constitution has ratified the 14th and 15th Amendments to the constitution of the United States; and whereas the performance of these acts in good faith is a condition precedent to the representation of the state in Congress. http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=016%2Fllsl016.db&recNum=115
An Act to admit the state of Arkansas to Representation in Congress. June 22, 1868 reads in pare section 1 " Whereas the people of Arkansas, in pursuance of the provisions of an act entitled "An Act for the more efficient government of the rebel states, passed March 2, 1867, and the acts supplementary thereto, have framed and adopted a constitution of state government , which is republican, and the legislature of said state has duly ratified the amendment to the Constitution of the United States proposed by the 39th Congress known as article 14. http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=015%2Fllsl015.db&recNum=105
An Act to admit the State of Virginia to Representation in Congress section reads in Part. "Whereas the people of Virginia have framed and adopted a constitution of state government which is republican; and whereas the legisher of Virginia elected under said constitution have ratified the 14th and 15th Amendments to the Constitution of the United States; and whereas the performance of these acts in good faith was a condiction precedent to the repsentation of the state in Congress http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=016%2Fllsl016.db&recNum=97
Arkansas on April 6, 1868 (McPherson, Reconstruction, p. 53).
North Carolina on July 2, 1868 (House Journal 1868, 15; Senate Journal 1868, p. 15).
Florida on June 9, 1868 (House Journal 1868, p. 9; Senate Journal 1868, p. 8).
Louisiana on July 9, 1868 (Senate Journal 1868, p. 1).
South Carolina on July 9, 1868 (House Journal 1868, 50; Senate Journal 1868, p. 12).
Alabama on July 13, 1868 (Senate Journal, 40th Congress, 2nd Sessn. p. 725).
Georgia on July 21, 1868 (House Journal 1868, p. 50).
Those Reconstruction Acts of Congress and all acts and things unlawfully done there under were in violation of Article IV, Section 4 of the United States Constitution, which required the United States to guarantee every State in the Union a republican form of government. They violated Article I, Section 3, and Article V of the Constitution, which entitled every State in the Union to two Senators, because under provisions of these unlawful Acts of Congress, ten (10) States were deprived of having two Senators, or equal suffrage in the Senate.
The Secretary of State did not nor did he ever have any lawful "Executive Transmittal" of "Ratification" of the 14th and 15th Amend within his possession from any southern state. The 14th and 15th Amendments have never been ratified in accordance to the provisions of the Constitution and therefor they don't exist in law pursuant to the US Const
This Preamble openly declares that the rebel states had no state government. as such they had no standing as states. Congress had unlawfully rescinded the status of statehood for those southern states. The southern states were reduced to nothing more than states of the District of Columbia existing as a territory or property of the United States under US Const. 1v 3;2 By what authority did congress rely upon to declare that the southern states had no legal governments and that the provisional Governments subject to the direct authority of congress when those states were brought into the Union equal footing with the other states?
Interesting Constitutional question especially when congress adopted the following resolution on July 24, 1861 37th Congress 1st Sesson Mis. Doc. No. 7 " RESOLVED, That the present deplorable civil war has been forced upon the country by the dis unionists of the southern states now in revolt against the constitution government and in arms around the capital: that that in this national emergency Congress, banishing all feelings of mere passion or resentment, will recollect only its whole duty to the whole country: that this war is not prosecuted upon our part in any spirit of oppression, nor for any purpose of conquest or subjugation, nor purpose of overthrowing or interfering with the rights or established institutions of those states, but to defend and maintain the supremacy of the Union, that with all the dignity, equality, and rights of the several states unimpaired; that as soon as these abject are accomplished the war ought to cease."
From all of the above documented historic facts, it is inescapable that the 14th Amendment never was validly adopted as an article of the Constitution, that it has no legal effect, and it should be declared by the Courts to be unconstitutional, and therefore null, void, and of no effect.
Corporate 14th Amendment Reconstruction Replacement Court
In American history we have two different court jurisdictions. The first was created by Article 3 Sec.2 "in law and equity Original Court. All Courts civil criminal state and Federal Constitutionaly were Article 3 Courts. This Constitutional court was replaced with a 1867 reconstruction court. This court operates under the jurisdiction of Article 1 section 8 clause 4 which gives congress the authority to enforce the laws of the United states. Well here is the new court system for the new United States that come out of reconstruction. http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=014%2Fllsl014.db&recNum=416
LOUISIANA LEGISLATURE URGING CONGRESS TO DECLARE THE 14th AMENDMENT Unconstitutional on June 13, 1967
A WELL ANNOTATED LAW DRIVEN BRIEF ON THE UNCONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE 14th AMENDMENT and how it;s a act of treason against our Constitution and it over threw our Constitution. Prepared by Judge Leander H. Perez of Louisiana was memorialized on the House floor . Memorization page number 15641- 15646 of this LAW DRIVEN Congressional Record . This Congressional record tells while quoting LAW how several Unconstitutional acts was done in order to claim the said 2/3 votes needed to claim the 14th Amendment was ratified. Including 23 senators from northern and southern states was unlawfully excluded from the US Senate in order to secure this 2/3 vote. Which also included replacing 10 lawful state governments for rejecting the 14th Amendment as Unconstitutional because they were Unconstitutionally denied representation in the Construction of said proposed 14th Amendment. And is took away state rights. The 10 newly replaced state governments had to vote on and pass the 14th Amendment in order for there states to be granted representation or remain under marshal law. Thus, done with marshal law. This record even points out how the federal courts will not hear a argument on the invalidity of the 14th Amendment.
Reconstruction overview By Judge Lander H. Perez. Pages 15641-46
You see why the 14th Amendment was: 1) fraudulently, unlawfully, illegally proposed by the U.S. Congress rendering it null and void at the outset; 2) ratified in the Southern states by 'rump legislatures', literally by military force at bayonet point — threat, duress and coercion — rendering it null and void in the second instance; 3) had nothing to do with giving freed slaves citizenship status and instead created a new status of citizenship for all Americans (U.S. citizens rather than Citizens of our respective states) which in effect enslaved us all; 4) dissolved and replaced constitutional law with the 'Laws of Commerce and Admiralty'... and 5) in a very real sense became a new constitution within the constitution.
!4th Amendments is "Unconstitutional "
The purported 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution is and should be held to be ineffective, invalid, null, void, and unconstitutional for the additional following reasons:
1. The Joint Resolution proposing said Amendment was not submitted to or adopted by a Constitutional Congress. Article I, Section 3, and Article V of the U.S. Constitution.
2. The Joint Resolution was not submitted to the President for his approval. Article I, Section 7.
3. The proposed 14th Amendment was rejected by more than one-fourth of all the States then in the Union, and it was never ratified by three-fourths of all the States in the Union.
The Unconstitutional Congress
The United States Constitution provides:
Article 1, 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 (23) Senators had been unlawfully excluded from the U.S. Senate, in order to secure a two-thirds vote for adoption of the Joint Resolution proposing the 14th Amendment is shown by Resolutions of protest adopted by the following state legislatures:
The New Jersey Legislature by Resolution of March 27, 1868, protested as follows:
The said proposed amendment not having yet received the assent of the three-fourths of the states, which is necessary to make it valid, the natural and constitutional right of this state to withdraw its assent is undeniable ***.
That it being necessary by the constitution that every amendment to the same should be proposed by two-thirds of both houses of congress, the authors of said proposition, for the purpose of securing the assent of the requisite majority, determined to, and did, exclude from the said two houses eighty representatives from eleven states of the Union, upon the pretense that there were no such states in the Union; but, finding that two-thirds of the remainder of the said houses could not be brought to assent to the said proposition, they deliberately formed and carried out the design of mutilating the integrity of the United States Senate, and without any pretext or justification, other than the possession of the power, without the right, and in palpable violation of the Constitution, ejected a member of their own body, representing this state, and thus practically denied to New Jersey its equal suffrage in the Senate, and thereby nominally secured the vote
of two-thirds of the said houses. (New Jersey Acts, March 27, 1868)
The Alabama Legislature protested against being deprived of representation in the Senate of the U.S. Congress. (Alabama House Journal, 1866, pp. 210-213)
The Texas Legislature by Resolution on October 15, 1866, protested as follows:
The amendment to the Constitution proposed by this joint resolution as Article XIV is presented to the Legislature of Texas for its action thereon, under Article V of that Constitution. This Article V, providing the mode of making amendments to that instrument, contemplates the participation by all the States through their representatives in Congress, in proposing amendments. As representatives in Congress 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. (Texas House Journal, 1866, p. 577.)
Georgia rejected the 14th Amendment on November 9, 1866. (House Journal 1866, p. 68;
The Georgia House Journal reads in part: "The the 14th Amendment was proposed without the Authority of the Constitution, the dignity and rights of Georgia might be compromised by consideration of the merits of the proposed amendments, that the proper course would be to lay them on the table, or indefinitely postpone their consideration, without one word of debate. We shall depart from this course, only so far as to give the reasons which, to our minds, forbid discussion upon the merits of the proposed amendments(14,15).
The argument resolves itself into a few simple propositions
1st . If Georgia in not a state composing a part of the Federal Government, known as the Government of the United States,, amendments to the Constitution of the United States are not properly before this body.
2nd. If Georgia is not a "state" composing a part of the Federal Government, known as the Government of the United States, then these amendments are not proposed according to the requirements of the Federal Constitution: and are proposed in such a manner as forbids "this" House from discussing the merits of the amendments, without an implied "surrender" of the "rights" of the State.
In discussing these propositions, we "WILL" endeavor to establish--
1st. That Georgia is a State of the United States, "cp-equal with all the other States of the Federal Union, and therefore entitled to "all" the rights and privileges of any and every other State under the Federal Constitution.
2d. That these amendments(14,15) have not been proposed in either of the methods required by the Fifth Article of the Constitution. We do not propose to discuss whether any political organization, except a state of the Union, cam constitutionally consider amendments to the Constitution, because, by the Fifth Article, proposed amendments become a part of the Constitution of the United States, when ratified by the Legislatures of three-fourths of the Several States, or by conventions in three-fourths of the several states as one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress. With this citation, we shall dismiss what seems to us to be a self evident proposition. IS GEORGIA ONE OF THE UNITED STATES? might rest upon the fact that the constitutional amendments proposed have been submitted to the Legislature of Georgia for ratification or rejection: but in view of the fact the "radical" party now "dominant at the North, recognizes the status of the seceding States as States whenever such recognition is necessary to a surrender of "rights", and denies the proposition whenever the recognition is essential to their maintenance, it may not be out of place to recur to the history of the Federal Government in order to define the relation of Georgia to the several states of the American Union. Neighboring States certainly have no inherent right to control the political condition of each other. Georgia being one of the original 13 states Certain political "powers" were delegated to the General Government, and certain other "powers" reserved to the States respectively.
Did Georgia have the right to secede ? Georgia supposed that when the General Government ceased to answer the purposes of its creation, that she had the "right" to secede. The remaining states declared the Union to be perpetual and indivisible: but "failing" under the Constitution to find any "power" to coerce a state, Congress resorted to the eighth section, in which the legislative powers are defined, "the power given to Congress to "suppress insurrection," and on July 29, 1861, passed an act to provide for the suppression of rebelling against and resistance to the laws of the United States and to amend an act passed February 28, 1795. This act the military powers was called designee not against the states and refused to reconstruction acts of secession as state acts, but treated them as acts of insurgents rebelling against the authority of the states, and United States. Under this political aspect of the case, no war was ever declared by Congress,(which is the only power that could declare war, and even they themselves called it a "Civil War") because a declaration of war would have recognized the practical right of secession. The war would have necessarily been declared against the Confederate Government, as a "FOREIGN POWER", and the relations which the States composing the Confederate Government would have become to the United, or remaining States, when conquered, would have been entirely dependent upon such terms as should be embodied in the "treaty of peace" which be made between the contending powers. Instead of recognizing secession and declaring war, the Congress of the United States passed the act referred to, for "suppressing insurrections."
How long did the power of the President continue to employ the militia of the several States, and the land and naval forces of the United States ? So long as the cause which caled it into existence continued, and no longer.
What is that cause ? This and "all" acts passed by Congress on the subject declares that it was to "suppress an insurrection", when it should be so formidable that the laws of the United States could not be enforced by ordinary judicial course: and this fact was left to the judgement of the president.
The president by proclamation, had declared the rebellion suppressed, that peace reigns throughout the United States, and the laws can bee enforced by ordinary judicial course. The so called insurrection had been suppressed. Ready to render obedience to the laws of the United States. No treaty followed the suppression of insurrection, and after being established as a lawful state government then being denied state rights
Georgia Senate Journal Nov. 1866, !4th Amendment is Unconstitutional
The Arkansas Legislature, by Resolution on December 17, 1866, protested as follows: https://docs.google.com/viewerng/viewer?url=http://www.dirtyunclesam.com/pdf/arkansasSenate_Journal.pdf
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. (Arkansas House Journal, 1866, p. 287.)
The Florida Legislature, by Resolution of December 5, 1866, protested as follows:
Let this alteration be made in the organic system and some new and more startling demands may or may not be required by the predominant party previous to allowing the ten States now unlawfully and unconstitutionally deprived of their right of representation to enter the Halls of the National Legislature. 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 of its exercise. (Florida House Journal, 1866)
The South Carolina Legislature by Resolution of November 27, 1866 protested as follows: https://docs.google.com/viewerng/viewer?url=http://www.dirtyunclesam.com/pdf/southcarolinaHouse_Journal.pdf
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 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. (South Carolina House Journal, 1866, pp. 33 and 34)
The North Carolina Legislature protested by Resolution of December 6, 1866 as follows: https://docs.google.com/viewerng/viewer?url=http://www.dirtyunclesam.com/pdf/northcarolinaSenate_Journal.pdf
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 majority.
If the votes of these States are necessary to a valid ratification of the Amendment, they were equally necessary on the question of proposing it to the States; for it would be difficult, in the opinion of the Committee, to show by what process in logic, men of intelligence could arrive at a different conclusion. (North Carolina Senate Journal, 1866-67, pp. 92 and 93.)
1I. Joint Resolution Ineffective
Article I, Section 7 provides that not only every bill which shall 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 re-passed by two-thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the rules and limitations prescribed in the case of a bill.
The Joint Resolution proposing the 14th Amendment, (14 Statutes at Large, p. 358 etc.) 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. (Senate Journal, 39th Congress, lst session. p, 563, and House Journal, p. 889)
III. Proposed Amendment Never Ratified by Three-Fourths of the States
Predetermining the ineffectiveness of said resolution, as above, fifteen (15) States out of then thirty-seven (37) States of the Union rejected the proposed 14th Amendment between the date of its submission to the States by the Secretary of State on June 16, 1866 and March 24, 1868, thereby further nullifying said resolution and making it impossible for its ratification by the constitutionally required three-fourths of such States, as shown by the rejections thereof by the Legislatures of the following states:
Alabama rejected the 14th Amendment on December 7, 1866. (House Journal 1866, pp. 210-213; Senate Journal 1866, p. 183) Ratified under Said "DURESS" https://docs.google.com/viewerng/viewer?url=http://www.dirtyunclesam.com/pdf/alabamaHouse_Journal.pdf
Alabama Senate journal Nov. 1866 14th Amendment Unconstitutional Alabama Refused it. https://docs.google.com/viewerng/viewer?url=http://www.dirtyunclesam.com/pdf/alabamaSenate_Journal.pdf
Kentucky rejected the 14th Amendment on January 8, 1867. (House Journal 1867, p. 60; Senate Journal 1867, p. 62) https://docs.google.com/viewerng/viewer?url=http://www.dirtyunclesam.com/pdf/kentuckyHouse_Journal.pdf
Kentucky Senate Jan. 1867 Rejects the 14th Amendment https://docs.google.com/viewerng/viewer?url=http://www.dirtyunclesam.com/pdf/kentuckySenate_Journal.pdf
Louisiana rejected the 14th Amendment on February 9, 1867. http://www.14th-amendment.com/Historical_Documents/State_Journals/Louisiana/Joint%20Resolution/Joint_Resolution.pdf
Delaware rejected the 14th Amendment on February 7, 1867 (House Journal 1867, p. 223; Senate Journal 1867, p. 176) https://docs.google.com/viewerng/viewer?url=http://www.dirtyunclesam.com/pdf/delawareHouse_Journal.pdf
Maryland rejected the 14th Amendment on March 23, 1867 (House Journal 1867, p. 1141; Senate Journal 1867, p. 808) https://docs.google.com/viewerng/viewer?url=http://www.dirtyunclesam.com/pdf/marylandHouse_Journal.pdf
Mississippi Senate rejected the 14th Amendment https://docs.google.com/viewerng/viewer?url=http://www.dirtyunclesam.com/pdf/mississippiSenate_Journal.pdf
Mississippi House Oct. 1866 https://docs.google.com/viewerng/viewer?url=http://www.dirtyunclesam.com/pdf/mississippiHouse_Journal_Year_1866.pdf
Mississsippi House journal Jan 1870 14th Amendment Unconstitutional http://dirtyunclesam.com/the-mississippi-house-journal-1870-declaring-the-14th-amendment-unconstitutional/
Ohio rejected the 14th Amendment on January 15, 1868 (House Journal 1868, pp. 44-50; Senate Journal 1868, pp. 33-38.) https://docs.google.com/viewerng/viewer?url=http://www.dirtyunclesam.com/pdf/ohioHouse_Journel.pdf
New Jersey rejected the 14th Amendment on March 24, 1868. (Minutes of the Assembly 1868, p. 743; Senate Journal 1868, p. 356) https://docs.google.com/viewerng/viewer?url=http://www.dirtyunclesam.com/pdf/newjerseyHouse_Journal.pdf
California REJECTED the 14th Amendment March 2, 1868.
Ohio Senate Jan 1868 withdrawing vote for the 14th Amendment https://docs.google.com/viewerng/viewer?url=http://www.dirtyunclesam.com/pdf/ohioSenate_Journal.pdf
Vigrina Senate did not vote for the 14th Amendment Jan 1867. https://docs.google.com/viewerng/viewer?url=http://www.dirtyunclesam.com/pdf/virginiaSenate_Journal.pdf
Virginia rejected the 14th Amendment on January 9, 1867. (House Journal 1866-1867, p. 108; Senate Journal 1866-1867, p. 101) https://docs.google.com/viewerng/viewer?url=http://www.dirtyunclesam.com/pdf/virginiaHouse_Journal.pdf
Joint Resolution of theLegislature of Oregon Withdrawing assent to the proposed fourteenth constitutional amendment a Unconstitutional fruad. http://www.14th-amendment.com/Historical_Documents/State_Journals/Oregon/Resolutions/Oregon_Resolution.pdf Page 1 http://www.14th-amendment.com/Historical_Documents/State_Journals/Oregon/U.S._Archives/Page_1.html and page 2 http://www.14th-amendment.com/Historical_Documents/State_Journals/Oregon/U.S._Archives/Page_2.html
There was no question that all of the Southern states which rejected the 14th Amendment had legally constituted governments, were fully recognized by the federal government, and were functioning as member states of the Union at the time of their rejection.
President Andrew Johnson, in his Veto message of March 2, 1867, (House Journal, 39th Congress, 2nd Sessn., p. 563 etc.) pointed out:
It is not denied that the States in question have each of them an actual government with all the power, executive, judicial, and legislative, which properly belong to a free State. They are organized like the other States of the Union, and, like them, they make, administer, and execute the laws which concern their domestic affairs.
If further proof were needed that these States were operating under legally constituted governments as member States of the Union, the ratification of the 13th Amendment by December 8, 1865 undoubtedly supplies this official proof If the Southern States were not member States of the Union, the 13th Amendment would not have been submitted to their Legislatures for ratification.
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." (Presidential Proclamation No. 153, General Records of the United States, G.S.A. National Archives and Records Service.) http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=71987
On August 20, 1866, President Andrew Johnson issued another proclamation (14 Statutes at Large, p. 814) pointing out the fact that the House of Representatives and Senate had adopted identical Resolutions on July 22nd (House Journal, 37th Congress, lst Sessn., 123 etc.) and July 25th, 1861, (Senate Journal, 37th Congress, lst Sessn., p. 91 etc.) that the Civil War forced by dis unionists 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 equality and rights of the several states unimpaired, and that as soon as these objects are accomplished, the war ought to cease.
The President's proclamation on June 13, 1865, declared the insurrection in the State of Tennessee had been suppressed. (13 Statutes at Large, p. 763.) The President's proclamation on April 2, 1866, (14 Statutes at Large, p. 811) declared the insurrection in the other Southern States, except Texas, no longer existed. On August 20 1866, (14 Statutes at Large, p. 814) the President proclaimed that the insurrection in the State of Texas had been completely ended, and his proclamation continued:
The Secretary of State did not nor did he ever have any lawful "Executive Transmittal" of "Ratification" of the 14th and 15th Amend within his possession from any southern state. The 14th and 15th Amendments have never been ratified in accordance to the provisions of the Constitution and therefor they don't exist in law pursuant to the US Const
Validity of Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to the Constitution : hearings before the United States House Committee on the Judiciary, Sixty-First Congress, second session, on Mar. 21, 22, 1910.
"1957 GEORGIA MEMORIAL TO CONGRESS"
A Joint Resolution of the Georgia General Assembly Mar. 8, 1957 No. 45 (Senate Resolution 39). http://georgiainfo.galileo.usg.edu/topics/history/article/the-leo-frank-case/joint-resolution-of-the-georgia-general-assembly-regarding-the-14th-and-15th
A memorial to the Congress of the United States of America urging them to enact such
legislation as they may deem fit to declare that the 14th and 15th amendments to the
Constitution of the United States were never validly adopted and that they are null and
void and of no effect
Governor Jenkins of Georgia April 10, 1867 speech on the Unconstitutional 14th Amendment and the Reconstruction acts. And his plans to appeal to th US Supreme Court. https://docs.google.com/viewerng/viewer?url=http://www.dirtyunclesam.com/pdf/Message_of_Governor_Jenkins.pdf
The Courts and the 14th Amendment
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). https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/73/50/case.html
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 his court in the premises.
The application 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 the 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.
The Act of Congress That Placed the Reconstruction Acts Beyond Judicial Recourse
In- another case, Ex parte William H. McCardle (7 Wall. 506-515), a petition for the writ of habeas corpus for unlawful restraint by military force of a citizen not in the military service of the United States was before the United States Supreme Court. After the case was argued and taken under advisement, and before conference in regard to the decision to be made, Congress passed an emergency act, (Act of March 27, 1868, 15 Stat. at L. 44), http://uscode.house.gov/statviewer.htm?volume=48&page=2# vetoed by the President and re passed over his veto, repealing the jurisdiction of the U.S. Supreme Court in such cases. Accordingly, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal without passing upon the constitutionality of the reconstruction Acts, under which the non-military citizen was held by the military without benefit of writ of habeas corpus, in violation of Section 9, Article I, of the U.S. Constitution which prohibits the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus.
Courts wont touch the validity of the 14th Amendment It's now Political by Duress from Law
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 millions of our fellow citizens. The country and the parties had a right to expect that it would receive the immediate and solemn attention of the court. By the postponement of this case we shall subject ourselves, whether justly or unjustly, to the imputation that we have evaded the performance of a duty imposed on us by the Constitution, and waited for Legislative interposition to supersede our action, and relieve us from responsibility. I am not willing to be a partaker of the eulogy or opprobrium that may follow. I can only say... I am ashamed that such opprobrium should be cast upon the court and that it cannot be refuted.
New governments were erected in those Southern States (and in others) under the direction of Congress. And these new legislatures were forced ratified the 14th Amendment.
The U.S. Supreme Court overlooked that it previously had held that at no time were these Southern States out of the Union. White v. Hart, 1871, 13 Wall, 646, 654.
In Coleman v. Miller, 307 U.S. 448, 59 S. Ct. 972, https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/307/433/case.html
The U. S. Supreme Court did not uphold the validity of the 14th Amendment.
In that case, the Court brushed aside constitutional questions as though they did not exist. For instance, the Court made the statement that:
The legislatures of Georgia, North Carolina, and South Carolina had rejected the amendment in November and December, 1866. New governments were erected in those States (and in others) under the direction of Congress. The new legislatures ratified the amendment, that of North Carolina on July 4, 1868, that of South Carolina on July 9, 1868, and that of Georgia on July 21, 1868.
And the Court gave no consideration to the fact that Georgia, North Carolina and South Carolina were three of the original states of the Union with valid and existing constitutions on an equal footing with other original states and those later admitted into the Union.
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 government in each state, as was recognized by Congress by its admission of those states into the Union. The Court certainly must take judicial cognizance of the fact that before a new state is admitted by Congress into the Union, Congress enacts an Enabling Act, to enable the inhabitants of the territory to adopt a Constitution to set up a republican form of government as a condition precedent to the admission of the state into the Union, and upon approval of such Constitution, Congress then passes the Act of Admission of such state.
All this was ignored and brushed aside by the Court in the Coleman case. However, in Coleman the Court inadvertently said this:
Whenever official notice is received at the Department of State that any amendment proposed to the Constitution of the United States had 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, https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/253/221/case.html
The U.S. Supreme Court unmistakably held:
The constitutional requirements set forth in Article V of the Constitution permit Congress to propose amendments only whenever two-thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary. That is, two thirds of both houses then constituted without forcible ejections.
Such a fragmentary Congress also violated the constitutional requirements of Article V that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.
Statements by the Court in the Coleman case that Congress was left in complete control of the mandatory process, and therefore it was a political affair for Congress to decide if an amendment had been ratified, does not square with Article V of the Constitution which shows no intention to leave Congress in charge of deciding whether there has been a ratification. Even a constitutionally recognized Congress is given but one volition in Article V, that is, to vote whether to propose an amendment on its own initiative. The remaining steps Congress are mandatory. If two-thirds of both houses hall deem it necessary, Congress shall propose amendments; if the Legislatures of two-thirds of the States make application, Congress shall call a convention. For the Court to give Congress any power beyond that to be found in Article V is to write the new material into article V.
In Marbury v. Madison, 307 U.S. 422, June 5, 1939 https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/307/433/case.html
Chief Justice Marshall for the unanimous Court:
"The framers of the Constitution contemplated the instrument as a rule for the government of courts, as well as of the legislature.
Why does a judge swear to discharge his duties agreeably to the Constitution of the United States, if that constitution forms no rule for his government?
If such be the real state of things, that is worse than solemn mockery. To prescribe, or take this oath, becomes equally a crime.
Thus, the particular phraseology of the Constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions * * * * courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument".The federal courts actually refuse to hear argument on the invalidity of the 14th Amendment, even when the issue is presented squarely by the pleadings and the evidence as above.
The US Supreme Court Held in Texas v. White 7. Wall. 700, 19 L,ED. 227 (1869)
" Where therefor when Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guarantees of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the state. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact, it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and other states was a complete, and perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original states. There was no place for reconsideration, or revocation, except through Revelation, or through consent of the states.
dyett v turner 439 p2d 266 Utah Supreme Court 1968 14th Amendment was not ratifed Constitutionaly and public awareness needs to be aroused http://www.dirtyunclesam.com/14thexplained.pdf
As the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution are found to have been brought into effect outside the mandates of Article V of the United States Constitution, these three Amendments (as a franchise to the United States) must be forfeited as a case of perversion. An Amendment to the United States Constitution is not brought into effect through usage, by Acts of Congress, or by Opinions of Courts. The federal Courts of the United States have found that questions of ratification of an Amendment to the United States Constitution are "political questions" to which the Courts will not address. According to the federal Courts, either the Congress of the United States or the States have the "textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issues" to determine the validity of the ratification votes cast on an Amendment. The authority to determine the validity of the votes cast in ratification of an Amendment are with the States and more specific, with the Convention of the States, as the U.S. Constitution at Article V declares that it shall be the power of the legislatures of the States to ratify proposed Amendments and to call for Constitutional Conventions. The people have declared within Article X of the Bill of Rights to the Constitution for the United States that those powers not delegated to the United States are reserved to the States.
As the federal Courts and the Congress of the United States have refused to determine the legitimacy of the ratification votes cast on the Civil War Amendments, it is proper and necessary for the legislatures of the States to question the Amendments. It appears from case law, the proper procedure would be for the legislatures of the several States to call for a "Constitutional Convention" for the purpose of making an investigation into the Amendments to determine if they were proposed and ratified in accordance to the provisions of the Constitution for the United States of America. It appears that only the "Convention" has the authority and power to act on questions with respect to matters of fraud, irregularity, or illegal practices in the conduct of Congress or the Legislatures. Also see State v. Phillips( below)
State v. Phillips 540 P.2d 936 (1975)
Political Question, Jury Question, or Constitutional Convention ?
An Article 5 Convention of the Lawful Constitutional States would be a lawful remedy, that's if all the states in the Union are Lawful states pursuant to the Constitution. Some of the newer said states in this Union the last 16 said ratified may not be Constitutional states in this Union. The Last 13 were ratified by a Unconstitutional Congress with puppet 14th Amendment jurisdictional replacement governments that have not changed back from reconstruction. Along with the remainder of the states are operating under this same Unconstitutional jurisdiction.
The 14th newest state Nebraska was said ratified during Reconstruction and the southern states were Unconstitutional denied representation in 1867 to this also in violation of article 5. So to say Nebraska is a Constitutional state would be to violate article 5 of the US Constitution.
The 15th newest State Nevada became a state during the Civil War in 1864. The US Supreme Court Held in Texas v. White "the southern states never left the Union". so lawful ratification should have waited till after the Civil War when "all" the states could have been represented in House and Senate pursuant to Article 5, Article 4, Sec. 3 CL.1 and not when President Lincoln needed the votes to get reelected.
West Virginia was formed without the Constitutional consent of Virginia one of the Original 13 States. The U.S. Constitution, Article IV, Section 3, Clause 1 states
" New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress". West Virginia can't be a legitimately of the Union, but a mere illegal breakaway province of the Commonwealth of Virginia. In LAW Constitutionally speaking of course. The US Const. makes "NO" exception to this "IN LAW".
The only Constitutional "Body" that can still lawfully decide law is the power given to a jury. Let a jury decide if its a political or Constitutional question.
Note: Thanks to double meaning words and perverted termed. One could defend the possession there are 51, or 52, or 53,54,55; or 1, or 34 or 35 states as well as 50. How ? Simple in 1864 Congress re defined the meaning of the word "state" to include Washington D.C. and territory . https://docs.google.com/viewerng/viewer?url=http://dirtyunclesam.com/pdf/State-act.pdf
So every terrorize could also be Unconstitutional considered a "state". Remember the 14th Amendment made us Citizens of the United States and the state where we reside. Example as a Citizen of the United States (Washington D.C. Inc. or the "State of Columbia) our corporate "PERSON HOOD" could be said to reside in that artificial state also. Meaning there is only "one" "state" then instead of 50 "in law" for the 14th Amendment corporate person, This means President Johnson was correct in his veto address the reconstruction acts made the law itself unlawful creating a de-facto government.
Now since the 14th Amendment all laws courts and government operate under the jurisdiction of the 14th Amendment. That means for the first 96 years the 14th amendment was said ratified until the Civil Rights Act of 1964.This new "Reconstruction Jurisdiction" "enforced" every law, racist included,(different punishment for same crime but different races ) in the United States. After all who did the 14th Amendment really make equal? Not the Native Americans they got slaughtered for a few more decades after Reconstruction. Surely not women it took them another 50 years and a hard struggle to gain the right to vote. Surely not the Asian look at the Japanese entertainment camps 70 years after Reconstruction. Surely not the BLACK race. Look at Ms. Parks getting arrested because she was "BLACK" and did not move to the back of the 80 years after Reconstruction. No where does the 14th Amendment say everyone equal it says "equal protection" . Besides making CORPORATIONS and HUMAN BEINGS equal in law. And "PERSONS" to mean "CORPORATIONS" behind the guise of racial equality the entire time.
The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions of 1789
These resolutions were passed by the legislatures of Kentucky and Virginia in response to the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 and were authored by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, respectively. The resolutions argued that the federal government had no authority to exercise power not specifically delegated to it in the Constitution. The states have a right and duty to refuse and arrest the responsable party(s).
The Kentucky RESOLUTION : By Thomas Jefferson 1798
THE VIRGINIA RESOLUTION: By James Madison 1798
Congressional Globe Reconstruction http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lwcglink.html
In Nov. 2009 I had the pleasure of talking to Ralph Conner. His video documentary no guns for Negroes shows how gun control began with the black race after the Civil War till the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ended discrimination. This also shows the struggle blacks had to go through for the first 96 years of this reconstruction 14th Amendment jurisdiction to be considered and treated "equal". http://nogunsfornegroes.com/basefile/movieplay-ngn-swf.htm
In the 20th Century the Reconstruction Jurisdiction Lives on
Thanks to the Reconstruction replacement Government. The power to print money was handed over to a private central bank known as The Federal Reserve in 1913 with The Federal Reserve Act.
How many times have we heard the US Treasury regulates the Federal Reserve ? Or the Federal Reserve needs permission from the US Treasury to do or print something ? Or the US Treasury should go back to printing money ? Well sorry to say the laugh is on the American "PERSONS"(14th Amend. Citizen) once again . I say this because it's all Ceremonial for our deception sake. Congress handed the US Treasury over to the Federal Reserve(that was nice of them) in 1920. See SIXTY-SIXTH CONGRESS. Sess. ll, CH. 214 ,1920. Page 654 (note page 676 in the pdf) INDEPENDENT TREASURY. . 1920. Page 654 http://www.constitution.org/uslaw/sal/041_statutes_at_large.pdf
Reconstruction Replacement Jurisdiction uses War Powers
A 1973 US Senate report states the United States has been in a on going state of national emergence since March 9, 1933 .
This US Senate report states we have been in a national emergency since at least March 9, 1933 if not going back to the Civil War. Common since tells me all the executive orders today number backwards to president Roosevelt executive orders which were were were in the 6000"s in 1933. An again backwards numerically the 14th Amendment was said ratified by fake E.O. 6 ordered lawful and published by Fake E. O. 7. Here is the so called Lincolns Executive Order #1 April 15 1861 the day President Lincoln declaired Marshal Law and the so called Civil War Began. http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=012%2Fllsl012.db&recNum=1311
No where is there a document that uses the language we are no longer under marshal law or we are no longer in any type of state of emergency. If so then what force of effect would fake Executive order's 6 and 7 now have to force the 14th Amendment on the American people ?
Here is the marshal law jurisdiction established for the Civil war known as General orders 100 or the leibra code. Section 32 of this code requires
"Art. 32. A victorious army, by the martial power inherent in the same, may suspend, change, or abolish, as far as the martial power extends, the relations which arise from the services due, according to the existing laws of the invaded country, from one citizen, subject, or native of the same to another.
The commander of the army must leave it to the ultimate treaty of peace to settle the permanency of this change."
Note a treaty of peace has never been signed naming this marshal law jurisdiction to an end.
So it appears from research and facts. The Reconstruction Replacement Government was designed for a permanent state of national emergency from the never ending jurisdiction of such.
Emergency War Powers of March 9, 1933(H.R. 1491)
FIRST: Congress declares a "Serious Emergency" exist.
SECOND: President Roosevelt uses "Emergency War Powers" (see it to the right of the page) to access Section (b) the Act of Oct. 6,1917 which is The Trading With Enemy Act of October 6, 1917, H.R. 4960, Public Law No. 91.
As used in this act the term "PERSON" means an individual,partnership, association,or corporation. Remember we already established a "person" is a citizen of the United States"SUBJECT TO" the "JURISDICTION" "THEREOF". An notice this act also uses the terms "Subject To" the "Jurisdiction" "thereof" as who it apply s to ? All 14th Amendment jurisdictional lingo. Every “citizen of the United States” is now “legally” established as an “enemy” via the Amendatory Act of March 9, 1933, 48 Stat. 1, amending Using emergency war powers means the Constitution is not supreme via marshal law emergency jurisdiction.
A 1975 Utah Law Review pages 596-598 on Dyett v. Turner, 439 P.2d 266 (1968)]. the 14th Amendment was not Constitutionally adopted.
Presidential Proclamations prove the 14th Amendment is fake
All the presidential Proclamations that prove the 14th Amendment is Unconstitutional. # 7 July 11,1868 North Carolina #8 July 18, 1868 South Carolina, #9 July 18, 1868 Louisiana #10 July 20 1868 Alabama, #11 July 20, 1868 Fake E.O. 6, #12 July 27, 1868 Georgia, # 13July 28, 1868 Fake E.O. 7,
The Right of Expatriation from the So Called 14th Amendment ?
The night before the 14th Amendment was said lawful and published. Congress knew it would be treason and duress not to make the 14th Amendment voluntary. This gives the individual the right to go back to his state government.