Https://tinyurl.com/y6f82xtk



Non-Existent Amendmentsto theConstitution for The?United?States of?AmericaCopyright ? 2021Gordon Warren EpperlyNonprofit use permitted, all other rights reserved.1554117272Digital CopyPDF = “”MS Word = “”020000Digital CopyPDF = “”MS Word = “”Non-Existent Amendmentsto theConstitution for The?United?States of?AmericaOver the years, the Constitution for our newly formed government of The?United?States of?America has been transformed with Amendments, some of which are questionable in their adoption and ratification. “The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall??propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the??legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for??proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and?purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of?three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in?the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall?be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.” [Emphasis added]. U.S. Constitution, Article?V The questionable Amendments are:Thirteenth?AmendmentFourteenth AmendmentFifteenth AmendmentSixteenth AmendmentSeventeenth AmendmentPages of Interest:PreambleMiscellaneousThe Jewish Oath of Kol NidreThe Jesuit Extreme Oath of?Induction HYPERLINK \l "Amendments" PreambleIntroductionThe Preamble sets the stage for the Constitution. It clearly communicates the?intentions of the framers and the purpose of the Document. The Preamble is an?introduction to the?highest law of the land; it is not the law. It does not define government powers nor?individual?rights."We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to?ourselves?and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the?United States of America."This Preamble is not found within many publications of the Constitution for?The?United?States of America.Statement of FactsThere are two phrases in the Preamble that will be addressed: First - “We?the?People of the United States”; and Second - “. . . . to ourselves and our Posterity.”People of the United StatesThe phrase “We the People of the United States” has been addressed by the?“Harvard?Law?Review, Vol. 126:1078”?/ wherein there is an agreement that the??phrase “We the People” refers to “all members of the political community.” [District?of?Columbia v.??Heller, 128 S.?Ct. 2783, 2790 (2008)].?/ The Court did not define?“the?political?community.” It is not a self-defining phrase.NegroesIn regard to the “Negros,” they were captured and imported into the United States for the?purpose of being made “Slaves.” A few were granted the status of?“free?persons” by?those?states that outlawed “Slavery.”When the Constitution was written for The United States of America, the founding fathers was required to make provisions in that Document that would preserve the?“Slavery” of?“Negroes” which existed in the southern states before those states would adopt and?ratify the Constitution. This provision of the Constitution is found at?Article?I, Section?9, Clause 1:“The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the?Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be?imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.”At the time the Constitution for The United States of America was written, the “Slaves” of the “Negros” were not considered to be a part of “We the People” of the?Preamble. This??question was settled by the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of “Dred Scott v.?Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1857),”?/ a “Court Opinion” which stands today (notwithstanding the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments of the Constitution for?The?United?States of?America):“The question is simply this: Can a negro, whose ancestors were imported into this?country, and sold as slaves, become a member of the political community formed and brought into existence by the Constitution of the United States, and as such become entitled to all of the rights, and privileges, and immunities, guaranteed by that instrument to the citizen?” [Emphases?added]—?Dred Scott, 60 U.S. at 403.“We think ... that [black people] are not included, and were not intended to be?included, under the word "citizens" in the Constitution, and can therefore claim none of the rights and privileges which that instrument provides for and secures to citizens of the United States. On the contrary, they were at that time [of?America's founding] considered as a subordinate and inferior class of beings who had been subjugated by the dominant race, and, whether emancipated or?not, yet remained subject to their authority, and had no rights or privileges but??such as those who held the power and the Government might choose to?grant?them.” [Emphases?added]—?Dred Scott, 60 U.S. at 404–05.Undocumented ImmigrantsIn regard to Undocumented Immigrants, the Court of “United States v. Portillo-Munoz, 643?F.3d?437 (5th?Cir.?2011)”?/ ruled that Undocumented Immigrants are neither lawabiding citizens, Americans, nor?are they members of the “political community” and as such, they are not of “We the People of the?United?States.”WomenIn regard to women, under the doctrine of Coverture, a married women was not included as one of “We?the?People” of the Preamble for all the rights described therein that may have belong to the?unmarried women have now become the rights of her?husband.Under traditional English Common Law, an adult unmarried woman was considered to have the legal status of “feme sole,” while a married woman had the status of?“feme?covert.” These?terms are “English” spellings of medieval Anglo-Norman phrases (the modern standard French spellings would be “femme seule” {single woman} and?“femme?couverte,” literally {covered woman}). The principle of Coverture was described in William Blackstone's “Commentaries on the?Laws of?England”?/ in the late 18th century: “By marriage, the husband and wife are one person in law: that is, the very being or legal existence of the woman is suspended during the marriage, or at least is?incorporated and consolidated into that of the husband: under whose wing, protection, and cover, she performs every thing; and is therefore called in our law-French a feme-covert; is said to be covert-baron, or under the protection and?influence of her husband, her baron, or lord; and her condition during her?marriage is called her coverture. Upon this principle, of a union of person in?husband and wife, depend almost all the legal rights, duties, and disabilities, that either of them acquire by the marriage. I speak not at present of the rights of property, but of such as are merely personal. For this reason, a man cannot grant any thing to his wife, or enter into covenant with her: for the grant would be to suppose her separate existence; and to covenant with her, would be only to?covenant with himself: and therefore it is also generally true, that all compacts made between husband and wife, when single, are voided by the intermarriage.” [Emphasis?added].Further proof that married women were not of the “political community” of?“We?the?People of the United States,” the founding fathers implied such status within the writing of the?Constitution for?The United States of America that all “Offices” of the?Constitution shall be held by the??white male Caucasian race (later amended by the 14th?Amendment to the?U.S.?Constitution to include all male races). In regard to the U.S.?House of?Representatives, you will find the word he is used once in?U.S.?Constitution Article I, Section 2, Clause 2 and for the?U.S.?Senate, the word he is?used three (3) times and the word his is used once?(1) in U.S.?Constitution Article?I, Section?3, Clause?3 and U.S.?Constitution Article?I, Section?3, Clause?5. The words he and his are gender?specific.? (Did you know that the 14th Amendment to the?U.S.?Constitution does not grant “Political Rights” of holding “Public Offices of Trust” to?women.).?It may be argued that the word he (as used in describing the gender of the?House?of?Representatives) is used only once and therefore the word was never intended to be gender specific by the founding fathers.? This myth is dispelled when the?founding fathers used the word he three (3) times in describing the qualifications of a?U.S. Senator. In Article??II of the U.S.?Constitution, the founding fathers used the?word?he fifteen?(15)?times, the word his six (6) times, and the word him six (6) times in describing the?qualifications and duties of the “President” of the United States.With the words he, his, and him being used to describe the qualifications and?duties of the “President,” these pronoun terms must be?recognized as being used to define the?words person and natural born citizen of Article II, Section?1, Clause?5 of the??Constitution for The United States of America. The Office of “President” (and??“VicePresident”) is limited to the white Caucasian male Citizens of the?United?States. Nowhere within the Constitution for The United States of America (as written in the?year of 1787) will you locate the words female, women, nor the pronouns her, or she. They?simply do not exist.The Women and Negroes that are holding the Office of the U.S. Congress, the??Office of Vice-President of The United States of America, and as Judicial?Officers of the Courts do so without authority of the Constitution for The United States of?America and thus, they??are all “Usurpers” that need to be removed from?Office. When these Women and?Negroes hold the “Public Offices of Trust” of the?U.S.?Government, they have destroyed the?Republic that binds the people to the?Laws of the U.S. Congress and to the?Rulings and Opinions of the?Courts:“The deliberations of the Constitutional Convention of 1787 were held in???strict???secrecy. Consequently, anxious citizens gathered outside Independence?Hall when the proceedings ended in order to learn what had been produced behind closed doors. The answer was provided immediately. A?Mrs.?Powel of Philadelphia asked Benjamin Franklin, ‘Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?’ With no hesitation whatsoever, Franklin?responded, ‘A republic, if you can keep it.’” [Emphasis?added]Benjamin Franklin?/Notwithstanding the “Married Women’s Property Acts”?/ as adopted by several states of the Union, the “laws” of the states have no effect upon the national (“federal”) government of The United States of America. For these “laws” of the states to take effect upon the?national (“federal”) government, there would have to be a “Constitutional?Amendment” that was approved by the “people” sitting in “Conventions” of the states.The Constitution for The United States of America was not written as a “living document” (see?“”). What??the??words of the U.S.?Constitution meant when it was written has the same meaning today.PosterityThe phrase “our Posterity” has been defined by the “founding fathers” to be the?future?generation of “We the People” that consist of?free?white?[male]?persons:Naturalization Act of 1790 [“1 Stat. 103”]Naturalization Act of 1795 [“1 Stat. 414”]Naturalization Act of 1802 [“2 Stat. 153”]This understanding of “We the People” and “Posterity” existed until U.S.?Senate Judiciary?Chairman, Lyman Trumbull, of Illinois, introduced a “Bill” mandating that "….?all?persons born in the United States," with the exception of American Indians, were?"hereby declared to be citizens of the United States." The legislation granted all “Negroes” the “full and equal benefit of all laws and????proceedings for the security of person and property as enjoyed by?white?citizens,?…”. (Enacted as the?“Civil?Rights?Act” of 1866 [“14?Stat.?2730”]. Reenacted as the?“Enforcement Act” of?1870 [“16?Stat.?140”]). The U.S.?Congress of?1866 and?1870 had a fear that these two Enactments of Law would be “struck down” by the U.S.?Supreme??Court for exceeding the authority of the?Constitution for??The United States of America (especially as the Court had recently ruled that the Negro population had no authority of the Constitution to be a??member??citizen of???The United States of America [see Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60??U.S. (19?How.)?393?(1857)] (supra.)). To resolve the problem, the U.S.?Congress of?1866 proposed the Fourteenth Amendment and the U.S.?Congress of 1869 proposed the?Fifteenth Amendment to the Constitution for The United States of America.These two enactment of Laws (“Civil Rights Act” of 1866,?/ “Enforcement Act” of 1870?/) and the Constitutional Amendments of the Fourteenth, Fifteenth, [and Nineteenth] exceeds the authority of the U.S.?Congress for there are no Members within that?Political?Body of the U.S.?Congress nor of the Legislatures of the states that have been given authority by the people to alter or amend the “Posterity” clause of the???Preamble to the Constitution for The United States of America with?“Constitutional?Amendments” or with?“Statutes?at?Large.” This authority to alter or??amend the “Posterity” clause may only be obtained from the “people” upon the?convening of an Amendment Convention of the states as provided for by Article?V of the?Constitution for?The?United States of?America?(Supra).The Courts have read the Preamble as bearing witness to the fact that the?Constitution emanated from the “people” and was not the act of sovereign and independent states. [McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. (17 U.S.) 316, 403 (1819);?/ Chisholm v. Georgia, 2????Dall. (2 U.S.) 419, 471 (1793);?/ Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee, 1?Wheat.?(14?U.S.)?304,?324 (1816)?/], and that it was made for, and is binding only in?The United States of America. [Downes?v.?Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901);?/ In?re?Ross,?140?U.S.?453, 464 (1891)?/]./ / / / / / HYPERLINK \l "Amendments" Thirteenth?AmendmentIntroductionThe Thirteenth?(13th)?Amendment to the Constitution for The?United?States of?America is?one (1) of three (3) Amendments that were purportedly ratified by the Legislatures of??three-fourths (?th) of the states / and made a part of the Constitution during the??aftermath of the conclusion of the American Civil War on April 9, 1865. The??Thirteenth (13th) Amendment was proposed on January 31, 1865 and purportedly??ratified on December 6, 1865. If it wasn’t for the U.S. Congress of the?northern states declaring that several southern states had no lawful?governments leaving those states without authority to participate in the “Debates” on the?Fourteenth?(14th)?Amendment and the Fifteenth (15th) Amendment, there would be no objection to the ratification of the?Thirteenth??(13th)??Amendment.Statement of FactsIf it was not for the history of the Fourteenth?(14th) and Fifteenth?(15th)?Amendments showing the southern?(‘Rebel’) states as having no lawful?governments of a state and showing that those Amendments to have been ratified by “Military Districts” of the??U.S.?Congress under the “Reconstruction Acts” of 186768,?/ there would be no?objections to the ratification of the Thirteenth (13th) Amendment. But as stated within the???“Reconstruction??Acts” of 186768, there were no lawful votes as cast by the?southern?states for the ratification of the Thirteenth?(13th) Amendment for those states had no lawful governments of a state (so says the northern states sitting as the???U.S.??Congress). As a matter of law of Article??V of the Constitution for?The?United?States of?America (supra.), there is a preponderance?of?evidence showing the?Thirteenth?(13th) Amendment failed ratification as the U.S. Congress allowed those who were not Legislators of a state to cast votes of ratification and then accepting those?votes as legitimate?votes as cast by the states of the Union. ConclusionFor the procedural defects as identified within the “Reconstruction?Acts” of 186768, the???Thirteenth??(13th)??Amendment is not an Amendment to the Constitution for?The?United?States of?America and as such, it needs to be purged from all Constitutions of the states, and the Constitution for The?United?States of?America.? It needs to be??purged from all Law Books of the states, and it needs to be purged from the??Statutes??at??Large. It needs to be purged from all Court?Records, and it needs to be?purged from all Text?Books. The precedence found to purge fraudulent Amendments to the Constitution for?The?United?States of America is with the purging of the “Title?of?Nobility?Amendment” (known as the Thirteenth (13th) Amendment as ratified on May 1, 1810). The?original?Thirteenth (13th) Amendment was “purged” from the History Books and from the??Constitution for The United States of America upon the???allegation that it was not?ratified. You may view the history of the “Title of Nobility Amendment” on the?“Internet” at: “.” HYPERLINK \l "Amendments" Fourteenth AmendmentIntroductionIf the Fourteenth?(14th)?Amendment didn’t exist, would “Women,” “Africans,” or any others whom are not “White Caucasian Males,” have “Political?Rights” to hold “Public Offices of?Trust” of?The United States of America? For the most part, the answer is “NO.” In regard to the African; this question was answered by the U.S.?Supreme?Court within the case of Dred Scott v. Sanford, 19 How,?404, 15?L.Ed.?69?/ wherein the Court declared (with reasoning of law) that an African is not a “Citizen” of the United?States (natural born or otherwise). As unpopular as this case may be, it is as valid today as the?day it?was?written.We also see that “Section?Two” of the present day Fourteenth?(14th)?Amendment declares that only “Male citizens” may cast votes. Bradwell?v.?State?of?Illinois, 83?U.S.?130?(1873), was a United?States Supreme?Court case that solidified the narrow reading of the “Privileges” or “Immunities Clause” of the Fourteenth (14th) Amendment, and?determined that the “right to practice a profession” was not among these “Privileges.” This case is also notable for being an early 14th??Amendment challenge to?sex?discrimination in the United?States. In this case, the United?States Supreme?Court held that the State of Illinois constitutionally denied “law licenses” to “women” because the?right?to “practice law” was not one of the “privileges”?and?“immunities” guaranteed by the?Fourteenth?(14th)?Amendment. The IllinoisSupreme?Court affirmed the ruling. It took three (3) “Amendments” to the “Constitution” for The United States of America to grant??“Woman” and “Africans” a limited privilege of “Suffrage” to cast “votes.” Please????keep in mind that the Seventeenth (17th) Amendment, the???Nineteenth???(19th)???Amendment, and the TwentyFourth (24th) Amendment addresses only those who are “citizens” as created by the Fourteenth (14th) Amendment. Without the Fourteenth (14th) Amendment, those?three?(3)?Constitutional Amendments (“17th,” “19th,” and “24th”) would be “null and void” for there would be no “citizens” in?existence to “convey” the “Political Rights” to “vote” (or to hold “Public Offices of Trust”).Statement of FactsThe following states of the Union have gone on record to declare that the??Fourteenth?(14th)?Amendment has not been “proposed” nor “ratified” as mandated by?Article?V of the Constitution for The United States of America. The “Resolutions” of the???following named states of the Union is an “Official (Judicial) Notice” upon??all??Agencies??and Branches of the???Governments (Federal & states) that the???Fourteenth???(14th)???Amendment is not an “Amendment” to the Constitution for?The?United?States of America. Question: “Who has the qualifications to state otherwise”?Here are the facts that proclaims the Fourteenth?(14th)?Amendment to be existing in?“fraud” and is an “usurpation of powers” of the states and of the people as reserved under?Article?X of the Bill of Rights to the Constitution for The?United?States of?America:No Amendment may violate International Law as that Law applies to “citizens” of??other Nations (e.g “Treaty of Ghent” (1815)?/, “Webster-Ashburton Treaty”?(1842),?/ and the “Aglo-American Treaty” of June 7, 1863). No authority may be found within International Law that authorizes a??Nation to invade another for the purpose of “confiscating” its “people” (e.g.?Africans) via “force of arms” for the??purpose of “compelling” those “people” to be its “citizens” without their?“consent”; andThe proposed “Amendment” was not presented to the President of?The?United?States of?America for his “Approbation.” The ruling of the U.S.?Supreme?Court in the case of Hollingsworth v. Virginia, 3?U.S.?378 is merely “dicta”?/ opinions of the Justices. The Justices of the???U.S.??Supreme??Court have no authority of the Constitution to “alter” or???“amend”???the???“wording” of any Clause of the U.S.?Constitution with their??“personal??views,”?or “personal opinions.” In declaring that Joint Resolutions proposing????“Constitutional???Amendments” do not have to be presented to??the??President for his “Approbation” is not binding and was made without authority of the?people or of the states sitting in a Convention.The wording of U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 7, Clause 3 makes it clear that?“All?Resolutions” shall be presented to the President.?/ If this was not so, the??“Delegates” of the Constitutional Convention would have expressly included this???assertion of Justices of the Supreme Court as an “exception” within the??Constitutional Clause of U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 7, Clause 3 as?it?was done with the question of “Adjournment”: “Every …. resolution … 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 …” [Emphasis added].A Joint Resolution proposing a?Constitutional?Amendment may contain no more than one subject matter as was not done with the Fourteenth?(14th)?Amendment: “We think amendments to the constitution …. shall be submitted separately, must be construed to mean amendments which have different objects and??purposes in view. In order to constitute more than one amendment, the??propositions submitted must relate to more than one subject, and have at?least two distinct and separate purposes not dependent upon or connected with each other?. . . .” [Emphasis added].State v. Timme, / 54 Wis. 318, 11 N.W.?785, 790See also the below supporting Cases:Kerby v. Luhrs, / 36 P.2d 549 (Ariz. 1934);State v. Cooney, / 70 Mont.?355, 225 P. 1007; State v. Wetz, / 40 N.D. 299, 168 N.W.?835, 5 A.L.R. 731; Jones v. McClaughry, / 169 Iowa.?281, 151 N.W.?210; Gottstein v. Lister, / 88 Wash. 462, 153 P. 595, Ann.?Cas.?1917D 1008; State v. Alderson, / 49 Mont.?387, 142 P. 210, Ann.?Cas.?1916B 39; State v. Jones, / 106 Miss.?522, 64 So.?241; People v. Prevost, / 55 Colo.?199, 134 P. 129, 133; Hammond v. Clark, / 136 Ga.?313, 71 S.E.?479, 38 L.R.A. (N.S.) 77; Lobaugh v. Cook, / 127 Iowa 181, 102 N.W.?1121,?1123; People v. Sours, / 31 Colo.?369, 74 P. 167, 102?Am.?St.?Rep.?34; Gabbert v. Chicago, / R.I. P. Ry. Co., 171 Mo. 84, 70 S.W. 891; State v. Herried, / 10 S.D. 109, 72 N.W.?93; Winget v. Holm, / 187 Minn. 78, 244 N.W.?331, 335;McBee v. Brady, / 15 Idaho 761, 100 P. 97; State v. Powell, / 77 Miss.?543, 27 So.?927, 931, 48 L.R.A.?652; Mathews v. Turner, / 212 Iowa 424, 236 N.W.?412, 415. Many of them merely quote the language of State?v.?Timme, (supra,) or refer to??it??approvingly, but there are a number which go into the question more fully and?elucidate and explain what is meant by propositions which relate?to?more than??one??subject and have at least two distinct and separate purposes not?dependent upon or?connected with each?other. The U.S. Congress submitted to the Legislature of the states the following matters to be voted upon as if they were one subject of an Amendment to the Constitution:“All persons born or naturalized in the United?States and subject to??the??jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United?States and of the state wherein they reside.” Fourteenth?(14th)?Amendment, Section 1 “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United?States.” Fourteenth?(14th)?Amendment, Section 1 “Nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without?due process of law,” Fourteenth?(14th)?Amendment, Section 1 “Nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of?the?laws.” Fourteenth?(14th)?Amendment, Section 1 “Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in?each?state, excluding Indians not taxed.” Fourteenth?(14th)?Amendment, Section 2 “But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for??President and Vice President of the United?States, Representatives in?Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of???such???state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the??United??States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in??rebellion, or other crime, the basis of Representation therein shall be?reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in?such?state.” Fourteenth?(14th)?Amendment, Section 2 “No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of??President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under?the United?States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United?States, or?as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United?States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or?comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of twothirds of each House, remove such disability.” Fourteenth?(14th)?Amendment, Section 3 “The validity of the public debt of the United?States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United?States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United?States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.” Fourteenth?(14th)?Amendment, Section 4 The [defacto] U.S. Congress may not compel any state to rescind its??negative??ratification vote as cast on a proposed Constitutional Amendment as??was??done??with the “negative votes” of the southern states as cast on the?Fourteenth?(14th)?Amendment; andThe [defacto] U.S. Congress has no authority to compel any state to surrender its??statehood status and be expelled from the Congress as was done with the??southern states [to obtain a forced fraudulent vote of ratification on the?Fourteenth?(14th)?Amendment]. What the southern states was not able to?accomplish with a Civil?War, the Congress of the northern states was able to do in obtaining a forced ratification of a Constitutional?Amendment. All the states entered into a Confederation of the Union of November?15,?1778, and thereafter, with the understanding that the Union shall be perpetual (see wording of?Preamble?/ and Article?XIII of the Articles of Confederation?/ as adopted on?March?1,?1781);?andThe [defacto] U.S.??Congress was without authority to substitute the?votes?of?rejection, as cast by the Legislatures of the southern states, with the?votes?of?ratification (as cast by Legislators of Military?Districts?/); andThe [defacto] U.S. Congress was without authority to authorize non-citizens [e.g.??Africans] of Military Districts to cast votes of ratification on the?Fourteenth?(14th)?Amendment; andThe [defacto] U.S. Congress was without authority to authorize any Legislature of a state to reverse its vote of rejection as cast upon the??Fourteenth??(14th)??Amendment (see Coleman v. Miller, 307 U.S. 433, 48850?(1939)?/); andThe [defacto] U.S. Congress was without authority to issue forth “Orders” upon an Officer of the Executive Branch of the?Federal?Government to proclaim the Fourteenth?(14th)?Amendment to have been ratified via?“Proclamation.”Political QuestionThe Federal Courts have proclaimed that the question of ratification of??Constitutional?Amendments is a “Political?Question” to the Courts for there is a??“textually demonstrable commitment to another branch.” The leading Supreme??Court case in the area of the “Political Question” doctrine is?Baker?v.?Carr, 369?U.S. 186,?217?(1962).?/ In the Baker?opinion, the Court outlined “six?(6)?characteristics” [p]rominent on the?surface of any case held to involve a “Political?Question,” which include:a textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue to a?coordinate political department; ora lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving it; orthe impossibility of deciding without an initial policy determination of a?kind clearly for non-judicial discretion; orthe impossibility of a court's undertaking independent resolution without expressing lack of the respect due coordinate branches of?government;?oran unusual need for unquestioning adherence to a political decision already made; orthe potentiality of embarrassment from multifarious pronouncements by?various departments on one question. The first factor — a textually demonstrable commitment to another branch — is?the?classical view that the Court must decide all cases and issues before it unless, as a matter of constitutional interpretation, the Constitution, itself, has?committed the “determination of the issue to another branch of government” [or?to?the states of the?Union.].In regard to Constitutional?Amendments, only the states (in and through their?Legislators) have been granted the “committed determination of the issue” by?the U.S. Constitution to alter, amend, (and by a Amendatory Convention?/), adopt??Constitutions; not the U.S. Congress. [see wording of Article?V of the?Constitution for The?United?States of?America (supra.)].The members of the U.S. Congress have been delegated only one power and duty in amending our nation’s Constitution. That power is with the U.S. Congress in?proposing Constitutional?Amendments and the duty is for the U.S. Congress to??set forth the procedure for ratification of those proposed Amendments. The??procedure to be used is that the Amendment shall be ratified either by?the?Legislatures of?three fourths (?th) of the several states, or in the alternative, by?Conventions in?three fourths (?th) thereof. Nowhere may it be found within the??Constitution for The United States of America that the members of the??U.S.?Congress have been given authority to determine the qualifications of?the?states and the legitimacy of the votes of those states as may have been casted for “Rejection” or casted for?“Ratification.” As it is the original “thirteen (13) states” of 1781 / that have “reserved” their?“powers” to “alter” or make “changes” to the Constitution for The United States of America as?expressed under Article X of the Bill of Rights and under Article?V of the?Constitution for The?United?States of?America; it is the “states” of the “Union” that have the “reserved authority” to the “committed determination of the issue” to review and rule upon the legitimacy of “ratification” of Constitutional?Amendments. The “Legislatures” of the states have spoken and they have declared that the???Fourteenth???(14th)???Amendment was never “proposed” nor “ratified” in?accordance with “Article?V” of the Constitution for The?United?States of?America:The Louisiana Legislature by H. Con. Res. 208 of June 13, 1967:“A concurrent resolution to expose the unconstitutionality of the?14th?Amendment to the Constitution of the United?States; to interpose the sovereignty of the State of Louisiana against the execution of?said?amendment in this State; to memorialize the Congress of?the?United?States to Repeal its Joint Resolution of July 28, 1868, declaring that said amendment had been ratified; and to provide for the?distribution of?certified copies of this resolution. [Emphasis added] “Whereas the purported 14th?Amendment to the United?States Constitution was never lawfully adopted in accordance with the requirements of??the??United??States Constitution because eleven states of the Union were deprived of their equal suffrage in the Senate in violation of Article?V, when??eleven southern states, including Louisiana, were excluded from??deliberation and decision in the adoption of the Joint Resolution proposing said 14th?Amendment; said Resolution was not presented to??the??President of the United States in order that the same should take?effect, as required by Article I, Section 7; the proposed Amendment was not ratified by three fourths of the states, but to the contrary, fifteen??states of the then thirty seven states of the Union rejected the??proposed 14th Amendment between the dates of its submission to???the???states by the Secretary of State on June 16, 1866, and?March?24,?1868, thereby nullifying said Resolution and making it?impossible for ratification by the constitutionally required three??fourths of??such states; said southern which were denied their equal?suffrage in??the??Senate had been recognized by proclamations of the?President of??the??United?States to have duly constituted governments with all the?powers which belong to free states of the Union, and??the??Legislatures of seven of said southern states had ratified the?13th?Amendment which would have failed of ratification but for the?ratification of said seven southern?states; and, [Emphasis added], “Whereas the Reconstruction Acts of Congress unlawfully overthrew their?existing governments, removed their lawfully constituted legislatures by??military force and replaced them with rump legislatures which carried out military orders and pretended to ratify the 14th?Amendment; and, [Emphasis added]. “Whereas in spite of the fact that the Secretary of State in??his??first??proclamation, of July 20, 1868, expressed doubt as to whether three??fourths of the required states had ratified the 14th?Amendment, Congress nevertheless adopted a resolution on July 28, 1868, unlawfully declaring that three fourths of the states had ratified the 14th?Amendment and directed the Secretary of State to so proclaim, said Joint Resolution of??Congress and the resulting proclamation of the Secretary of State included the purported ratifications of the military enforced rump legislatures of?ten?southern states whose lawful legislatures had previously rejected the??said 14th?Amendment, and also included purported ratifications by??the??legislatures of the States of Ohio, and New Jersey although they had??withdrawn their legislative ratifications several months previously, all?of?which proves absolutely that said 14th?Amendment was not adopted in accordance with the mandatory constitutional requirements set forth in??Article?V of the Constitution and therefore the Constitution strikes with?nullity the purported 14th?Amendment. [Emphasis added]. “Now therefore be it resolved by the Legislature of Louisiana, the?House?of?Representatives and the Senate concurring: “That the Legislature go on record as exposing the??unconstitutionality of the 14th?Amendment, and interposes the?sovereignty of the???State???of???Louisiana against the execution of said 14th??Amendment against the State of Louisiana and?its?people; [Emphasis added].“That the Legislature of Louisiana opposes the use of the invalid 14th?Amendment by the Federal?Courts to impose further unlawful edicts and hardships on its people; [Emphasis added].“That the Congress of the United?States be memorialized by??this???Legislature to Repeal its unlawful Joint Resolution of??July??28,??1868, declaring that three fourths of the states had?ratified the 14th?Amendment to the United States Constitution. [Emphasis added].“That the Legislatures of the other states of the Union be??memorialized to give serious study and consideration to take similar action against the validity of the 14th?Amendment and to?uphold and support the Constitution of the United?States which strikes said 14th?Amendment with nullity; “That copies of this Resolution, duly certified, together with a copy of the treatise on “The Unconstitutionality of the 14th?Amendment” by??Judge?L.?H.?Perez, be forwarded to the Governors and???Secretaries of State of each state in the Union, and???to???the????Secretaries of the United States Senate and????House????of????Congress, and to the Louisiana Congressional??Delegation, a copy hereof to be published in?the?Congressional?Record.” (see “”) The New Jersey Legislature by Resolution of March 27, 1868:“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 ... [Emphasis added]“That it being necessary by the Constitution that every amendment to??the same should be proposed by two thirds of both houses of??Congress, the authors of said proposition, for the purpose of??securing the assent of the requisite majority, determined to, and?did, exclude from the said two houses eighty Representatives from eleven states of the union, upon the pretense that there were no??such states in the Union; but, finding that two thirds of??the??remainder of the said houses could not be brought to assent to the said proposition, they??deliberately formed and carried out the?design of mutilating the integrity of the United?States Senate, and?without any pretext or justification, other than the possession of??the power, without the right, and in the palpable violation of?the?constitution, ejected a member of their own body, representing this state, and thus practically denied to New Jersey its equal suffrage in the senate, and thereby nominally secured the vote of two thirds of?the said houses. …. [Emphasis added]“Be and the same is hereby rescinded, and the consent on behalf of???the state of New Jersey to ratify the proposed Fourteenth????(14th)????Amendment to the constitution of the?United?States, is hereby withdrawn.” [Emphasis added](see “”) The Georgia Legislature, by Resolution on November 9, 1866:“Since the reorganization of the State government, Georgia has elected?Senators and Representatives. So has every other State. They?have been arbitrarily refused admission to their seats, not on the??ground that the qualifications of the members elected did not conform to the fourth paragraph, second section, first Article of the?Constitution, but because their right of Representation was denied by a portion of the States having equal but not greater rights than??themselves. They have in fact been forcibly excluded; and,??inasmuch as all legislative power granted by the States to the??Congress is defined, and this power of exclusion is not among the?powers expressly or by implication, the assemblage, at the capitol, of Representatives from a portion of the States, to the exclusion of the??Representatives of another portion, cannot be a constitutional Congress, when the Representation of each State forms an integral part of the whole. [Emphases added].“This amendment is tendered to Georgia for ratification, under that power in the Constitution which authorizes two thirds of the Congress to???propose amendments. We have endeavored to establish that?Georgia had a right, in the first place, as a part of the Congress, to?act upon the question, ‘Shall these amendments be proposed?' Every?other excluded State had the same right. [Emphases added]. “The first constitutional privilege has been arbitrarily denied. Had?these?amendments been submitted to a constitutional Congress, they?would never have been proposed to the States. Two thirds of the??whole Congress never would have proposed to eleven States voluntarily to reduce their political power in the Union, and at the???same???time, disfranchise the larger portion of the intellect, integrity,?and patriotism of eleven coequal States.'' [Emphasis added].(see “”)(see also “”) (see also “”) The Florida Legislature, by Resolution of December 5, 1866:“Let this alteration be made in the organic system and some new and??more startling demands may or may not be required by the?predominant party previous to allowing the ten States now unlawfully and unconstitutionally deprived of their right of Representation is?guaranteed by the Constitution of this country and there is no act, not?even that of rebellion, can deprive them.” [Emphasis added].(see also “”) The South Carolina Legislature by Resolution of November 27, 1866:“Eleven of the Southern states, including South Carolina, are deprived of???their Representation in Congress. Although their Senators and??Representatives have been duly elected and have presented themselves for the purpose of taking their seats, their credentials have, in?most instances, been laid upon the table without being read, or have been referred to a committee, who have failed to make any report on the?subject. In short, Congress has refused to exercise its Constitutional functions, and?decide either upon the election, the return, or the qualification of these selected by the States and people to Represent us. Some of the Senators and Representatives from the Southern states were prepared to take the test oath, but even these have been persistently ignored, and kept out of the?seats to which they were entitled under the?Constitution and laws. “Hence this amendment has not been proposed by `two thirds of???both???Houses' of a legally constituted Congress, and is not, Constitutionally?or legitimately, before a single Legislature for ratification.'' [Emphasis added].(see also “”)The North Carolina Legislature protested by Resolution of?December?6,?1866:“The Federal Constitution declares, in substance, that Congress shall consist of a House of Representative, composed of members apportioned among the respective States in the ratio of their population and of a Senate, composed of two members from each State. And in the Article which concerns Amendments, it is expressly provided that ‘no State, without its??consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.' The??contemplated Amendment was not proposed to the States by a??Congress thus constituted. At the time of its adoption, the eleven seceding States were deprived of Representation both in the Senate and?House, although they all, except the State of Texas, had Senators and?Representatives duly elected and claiming their privileges under the?Constitution. In consequence of this, these States had no voice on the??important question of proposing the Amendment. Had they been allowed to give their votes, the proposition would doubtless have failed to?command the required two thirds majority.” [Emphasis added].(see also “”) The “Resolution of the Legislature of Oregon to withdraw its assent to?the?proposed fourteenth Constitutional?Amendment.” “JOINT?RESOLUTIONS rescinding resolution passed September?19,?1866, relative to amending the Constitution of the United?States, and???withdrawing???the assent of the State of Oregon to the?proposed?14th?Constitutional?Amendment. [Emphasis added]. “. . . . . “And whereas the newly constituted and newly established bodies, avowing themselves to be, and acting as the legislatures respectively of the States of Arkansas, Florida, North Carolina, Louisiana, South Carolina, Alabama, and Georgia, were created by a military despotism against the will of the?legal voters of the said States, under the reconstruction acts (so called) of Congress, which are usurpations, unconstitutional, revolutionary, and??void; and consequently the acts of such bodies cannot legally ratify the??said proposed Constitutional?Amendment for the States which they??pretend to Represent, nor affect the rights of the other States of?the?Union; …. [Emphasis added]. “And whereas on the 6th day of October, 1866, the House of??Representatives of this State adopted a resolution declaring that the???action of that body in ratifying the said proposed Constitutional?Amendment did not express the will of the said house as??it??then stood, after being purged of its illegal members: Therefore, [Emphasis added]. “Be it resolved by the legislature assembly of the State of Oregon, That?the?above recited resolution adopted by the legislature assembly on???the 19th day of September, 1866, by fraud, be, and the same is?hereby?rescinded, and the ratification on behalf of the State of Oregon of??the above recited proposed amendment to the Constitution of?the?United States is hereby withdrawn and refused.?…” [Emphases?added]. (see “”).Further “Declarations” to the “Illegitimacy” of the “proposal” and “rejection” of???the???Fourteenth???(14th)???Amendment may be found within the “House” and??“Senate??Journals” of the “states” that cast “votes of rejection” on the?“Amendment”: Texas rejected the 14th?Amendment on October 27, 1866. [House Journal 1866, Pgs. 578-584 /--Senate Journal 1866, Pg.?471?/]. Georgia rejected the 14th?Amendment on November 9, 1866. [House Journal 1866, Pg. 68 /--Senate Journal 1866, Pg.?72?/]. Florida rejected the 14th?Amendment on December 6, 1866. [House Journal 1866, Pg. 76 /--Senate Journal 1866, Pg.?8?/]. Alabama rejected the 14th?Amendment on December 7, 1866. [House Journal 1866, Pgs. 210-213 /--Senate Journal 1866, Pg.?183?/]. Arkansas rejected the 14th?Amendment on December 17, 1866. [House Journal 1866-67, Pg. 183 /--Senate Journal 1866-67, Pg.?138?/]. North Carolina rejected the 14th?Amendment on December 17, 1866. [House Journal 1866, Pgs. 288-291 /--Senate Journal 1866, Pg.?262?/].Virginia rejected the 14th?Amendment on January 9, 1867. [House Journal 1866-67, Pg. 108 /--Senate Journal 1866-67, Pg.?101?/].Louisiana rejected the 14th?Amendment on February 6, 1867. [McPherson, Reconstruction, Pg. 194 /-- Annual Encyclopedia, Pg.?452?/].[see also Joint Resolution No. 4, House Journal 1867, P. 9 /]. Delaware rejected the 14th?Amendment on February 7, 1867. [House Journal 1867, Pg. 223 /--Senate Journal 1867, Pg.?176?/].South Carolina rejected the 14th?Amendment on December 20, 1866. [House Journal 1866, Pg. 284 --Senate Journal 1866, Pg.?230?/]. Kentucky rejected the 14th?Amendment on January 8, 1867. [House Journal 1867, Pg. 60 /--Senate Journal 1867, Pg.?62?/]. Maryland rejected the 14th?Amendment on March 23, 1867. [House Journal 1867, Pg. 1141 /--Senate Journal 1867, Pg.?808?/]. Mississippi rejected the 14th?Amendment on January 31, 1867. [House Journal 1866, Pg. 6 /--Senate Journal 1866, Pg.?67?/]. New Jersey rejected the 14th?Amendment on March 24, 1868. [Minutes of the Assembly 1868, Pg.?743 / [see also Minutes of the Assembly, Pgs.?12251231 / --Senate Journal 1868, Pg.?356?/]. Ohio rejected the 14th?Amendment on January 15, 1868. [House Journal 1868, Pgs.?44-50 /--Senate Journal 1868, Pgs.?2238?/].You may view the true “Photocopies” of the above “House” and “Senate Journals” on?the “Internet” at: “”.Please take notice that the case of Baker v. Carr (1962) is repugnant to the???case???of???Hollingsworth v. Virginia, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 378 (1798) wherein the?U.S.?Supreme?Court ruled that it had jurisdictional authority to determine questions involving the proposal and ratification of Constitutional?Amendments.The Court of “Coleman v. Miller” (307 U.S. 433 (1939))?/In June, 1924, the “Congress” proposed an “Amendment” to the “Constitution,” known as the?“Child Labor Amendment” and the “Court” of “Coleman v. Miller” was asked to determine if a “Lieutenant Governor,” sitting as the “Presiding Officer” of the “Senate,” had authority to cast the “tie breaking vote” in favor of ratification of the “Amendment.”Mr. Chief Justice “HUGHES” in delivering the “Opinion” of the “Court,” cited several instances of what the “Court” considered to be “Political Questions,” one of which was the?[purported] ratification of the “Fourteenth Amendment”:“… the political departments of the Government dealt with the effect both of?previous rejection and of attempted withdrawal and determined that both were ineffectual in the presence of an actual ratification. While there were special circumstances, because of the action of the Congress in?relation to the governments of the rejecting States (North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia), these circumstances were not recited in?proclaiming ratification and the previous action taken in these States was set forth in the proclamation as actual previous rejections by the?respective legislatures. This decision by the political departments of the Government as to the validity of the adoption of the?Fourteenth?Amendment has been accepted.“We think that in accordance with this historic precedent the question of the?efficacy of ratifications by state legislatures, in the light of previous rejection or attempted withdrawal, should be regarded as a?political?question pertaining to the political departments, with the ultimate authority in the Congress in the exercise of its control over the?promulgation of the?adoption of the amendment.” [Emphasis added].Coleman v. Miller, 307 U.S. 433, 449-450This is a wild unsubstantiated statement coming from those who are supposed to be the learned “Masters of?Law” of our Nation’s “Courts.” Notwithstanding the “Opinion” of Chief Justice “HUGHES,” the?“Statutes?at?Large” declares otherwise. The “U.S.?Congress” has gone on record that there were no?legitimate “states” of the?“Rebel?South” in existence at the time those “states” supposedly cast “votes of ratification” on the?“Fourteenth?Amendment”:THIRTY-NINTH?CONGRESS, Sess.?II,?Ch.?153?/ “An Act to provide for the?more efficient Government of the Rebel States.”FORTIETH?CONGRESS, Sess.?II,?Ch.?70?/ “That each of the States of???North Carolina, South Carolina, Louisiana, Georgia, Alabama, and?Florida, shall be entitled and admitted to representation in Congress as a State of the Union.”FORTY-FIRST?CONGRESS,?Sess.?II,?Ch.?19?/ “An Act to admit the???State???of???Mississippi to representation in the Congress of the?United?States.”FORTIETH?CONGRESS,?Sess.?II,?Ch.?69?/ “An Act to admit the?State?of?Arkansas to Representation in Congress.”FORTY-FIRST?CONGRESS,?Sess.?II,?Ch.?39?/ “An Act to admit the?State?of?Texas to?Representation to the Congress of the?United?States.”FORTY-FIRST?CONGRESS,?Sess.?II,?Ch.?10?/ “An Act to admit the???State???of???Virginia to Representation in the Congress of the?United?States.”U.S.?Congress Joint Resolution No. 58?/ “A Resolution excluding fromthe Electoral College votes of States lately in Rebellion, which shall have not been?reorganized.”Senate?Mis.?Doc.?No.?15?/ “Resolved, That the Committee on the?Judiciary be instructed to report a bill abrogating the unauthorized and?illegal State governments now existing in . . .”U.S.?Senate?Resolution?of?December?5,?1866?/ “Resolution declaring the?true principles of reconstruction; the jurisdiction of Congress over the?whole subject; the illegality of existing governments in the rebel States, and the exclusion of such States, with such illegal governments, from????representation in Congress, and from voting on constitutional?amendments.”Chief Justice “HUGHES” saw only what he wanted to see. If he took the time to?read the all the “Statutes at Large” which were involved in the ratification of the?“Fourteenth Amendment” he would have discovered within the wording of?“Sec.?6” of “THIRTY-NINTH CONGRESS, Sess. II, Ch. 153” that the???“ratification??votes,” as cast upon the “Amendment,” were cast by???“Provisional???Governments” of “Military Districts” before those “Provisional??Governments” were admitted into the “Union” as “states” by law of the?“U.S.?Congress”:“Sec. 6. And be it further enacted, That, until the people of said rebel States shall be by law admitted to representation in the Congress of the?United?States, any civil governments which may exist therein shall be?deemed provisional only, and in all respects subject to the paramount authority of the United States at any time to abolish, modify, control, or?supersede the?same; . . .”THIRTY-NINTH CONGRESS, Sess. II, Ch. 153, Sect. 6;14 Stat. 429. And the “law(s)” spoken of are the “Statutes at Large” as listed above admitting the?“states” [“States”] to representation in the “U.S. Congress” which states in part:“Whereas the people of North Carolina, South Carolina, Louisiana, Georgia, Alabama, and Florida have, in pursuance of the provisions of an act entitled “An act for the more efficient government of the rebel States,” passed?March?second, eighteen hundred and sixty-seven, and the acts supplementary thereto, framed constitutions of State governments which are republican thereto, framed constitutions of State government which are?republican, and have adopted said constitutions by large majorities of the votes cast at the elections held for the ratification or rejection of the?same: Therefore,Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the??United States of America in Congress assembled, That each of the?States [“Military Districts”] of North Carolina, South Carolina, Louisiana, Georgia, Alabama, and Florida, shall be entitled and admitted to?representation in Congress as a?State of the Union when the legislature of such State [“Military Districts”] shall have duly ratified the amendment to the Constitution of the United States proposed by the Thirty-ninth Congress, and known as article fourteen, ….” [Emphasis?added].FORTIETH CONGRESS, Sess. II, Ch. 70;With the phrase: “shall be entitled and admitted to representation in Congress as a?State of the Union when the legislature of such State shall have duly ratified the?amendment to the Constitution of the United States” is a statement used by the???“U.S.?Congress” to declare that it is the “Provisional Governments” of????[“Military??Districts”] that are to cast “votes of ratification” on the?“Fourteenth?Amendment” and even then, not as a voluntary action of the?“Legislature” of those “Military Districts.”If “North Carolina,” “South Carolina,” “Louisiana,” “Georgia,” “Alabama,” and?“Florida” have the lawful status of being a “state” [“State”] of the “Union” under this?“Statute at Large” of “FORTIETH CONGRESS, Sess. II, Ch. 70” (and other “Statutes?at?Large”), then by what authority does the “Fortieth Congress” rely upon to??set forth conditions for any of??those “states” [“States”] to exercise its?“U.S.?Const., Art. V” (supra.) rights of “suffrage” in the?“U.S.?Senate”?As the above named “states” [“States”] were not allowed to unconditionally occupy a seat in the?“Senate” of the “U.S. Congress,” they were not “states” [“States”] of the?“Union” having the qualifications to ratify “Amendments” to the “Constitution” for?“The?United?States of?America.”/ / / / / // / / / / // / / / / /Emancipation Proclamation President Abraham Lincoln issued forth an “Executive Order,” known as??the??“Emancipation Proclamation” of September 22, 1862, granting Africans temporary freedom if they participated in the Civil?War as “Agents” of??the??Union??Military. The intention of the President to grant Africans the status of “citizenship” and “freedom” was cut short by his “assassination” at?the?hands of the?“Jesuits” of the “Catholic Church.” President Lincoln attempted to perpetuate his “Emancipation Proclamation” by???proposing the “Involuntary Servitude Amendment,” (known today as?the?Thirteenth?(13th)?Amendment) giving the Africans the status of “freedom.” This????status of “freedom” was cut short when the U.S.?Congress, and?several?states of the Union, made Africans the “Servants” to a new “Master.” Their new “Master” is??identified within the Fourteenth (14th) Amendment as being the U.S.??Congress (whose members are forcing Africans to be “citizens” of the?“United States” against their will and without their consent, and with the?U.S.?Congress being the?enforcer of the Amendment). (see?“U.S.?Const.,?14th?Amend., Section 1” &?“Section 5”).It was the “Plan” of President Lincoln to offer the Africans a choice at the?conclusion of the Civil?War to either become “citizens” of the “United?States,” or in the?alternative, be transported back to their Homeland (e.g.?“Republic of Liberia”?/) at the?expense of the?United?States. Of course this did not happen.Do you not understand the views of the Africans of today! They look back to??the??Civil??War and see that at no time were their “Ancestors” ever under the?jurisdiction of the United?States. They also know that no Nation may (lawfully) compel any of their slave “Ancestors” and their “Descendants” to become “citizens” of?its Nation against their will. (see “Expatriate Acts” of 1868 & of 1871 as found on?the?“Internet” at “”). They view themselves as “Descendants” of their slave “Ancestors” (which?relationship to their “Ancestors” does not bring them under the authority of the??Fourteenth?(14th)?Amendment to the Constitution for The United States of?America) and as such, they are not “citizens” of our Nation. They view themselves as having no obligation of “Allegiance” to observe the “laws” of our?Nation. As their slave “Ancestors” were never given the opportunity to make a?“freedom?of?choice” to be returned back to their Homeland, they believe that they have a need to??involve themselves in “Riots” and “Civil Disorder” for the??purpose of destroying a Nation that they believe keeps them in the status of?“Involuntary?Servitude” to a?Nation that is not of their own.The solution is to execute the “Plan”?/ of former President Abraham Lincoln and set forth a??number of days for every African to come forward and make a choice of?accepting an “Oath of Allegiance”?/ (as given to “Candidates” for “Naturalization” of?“Citizenship”) and become “Citizens” of our “Nation” of “The?United?States of?America,” or in the alternative, be returned back to the Homeland of their??“Ancestors.” Any African who does not accept this offer, or???anyone who obstructs this offer, shall be “incarcerated” for being a?“domestic?enemy” to?our?“Constitution” for?“The?United?States of?America.”?/ / / / / // / / / / // / / / / /Proclamations of Ratifications Philander C. Knox?/ never held an Office of the United?States for he was never appointed into Office by a lawful President of The United States of???America.??(infra.?/). Philander??C.??Knox had no lawful authority to???issue???forth???Proclamations, including Proclamations of Ratifications of????Constitutional?????Amendments.???(infra.). There is no lawful (“dejure”) “Proclamation???of???Ratification” for the Sixteenth (16th) Amendment leaving the?Sixteenth (16th) Amendment to be “null and void” Ab Initio. During the years of 1866-67, the Congress of the northern (‘Yankee’) states proclaimed (with their enactments of laws) that the southern (‘Rebel’) states had no lawful Republican form of Governments, and as such, their Representatives were denied their seats in the House and the Senate of the U.S. Congress. These??Representatives of the southern states were not allowed to participate in???the “Debates” nor cast “votes” upon the “Joint Resolution” proposing the?Fourteenth?(14th)?Amendment.To make matters worse; while those states were under Congressional mandated?“Martial Law” of “Military Districts,” the Congress of the northern states declared that those southern states (with unlawful governments) were??????to??????be??????“required” to cast “Votes of Ratification” on the???Fourteenth???(14th)???Amendment (and the Fifteenth (15th) Amendment) “as?a?condition” of being reinstated into the Union with their status of “statehood” and being represented in the?U.S.?Congress:THIRTY-NINTH CONGRESS, Sess. II, Ch. 153 /FORTIETH CONGRESS, Session I, Chapter 30 /FORTIETH CONGRESS, Sess. II. Ch. 69 /FORTIETH CONGRESS, Sess. II, Ch. 70 /FORTY-FIRST CONGRESS, Sess. II. Ch. 10 /FORTY-FIRST CONGRESS, Sess. II, Ch. 19 /FORTY-FIRST CONGRESS, Sess. II, Ch. 39 /U.S. Senate Resolution of December 5, 1866 /U.S. Congress, Joint?Resolution No.?58 / (“A ‘Joint Resolution’ excluding from the ‘Electoral College’ votes of?‘States’ lately in ‘Rebellion,’ which shall have not been reorganized”). [Emphasis added].This “Joint Resolution No. 58” is the “Document of Proof” that the?southern?states were stripped of their status of “statehood.” The question arises: “If those southern (‘Rebel’) states had no lawful governments, as?proclaimed by the Congress of the northern (‘Yankee’) states, why did the??northern??states (sitting in Congress) allow the southern??states to?cast?votes?of?ratification (and then accepting their votes as being cast by legitimate governments of a state) upon the “Involuntary Servitude Amendment” (known today as the Thirteenth?(13th)?Amendment) to?the?Constitution for The?United?States of?America”??/This “vote of ratification” on the Fourteenth?(14th)?Amendment took place at the???time???when the Congress of the northern (‘Rebel’) states gave its??approval??to??the??U.S.??Secretary of State, Philander C. Knox’s issuance of???“Proclamations??of??Ratifications” for the Fourteenth (14th) Amendment?/ and?the?Fifteenth?(15th)?Amendment.?/ But as Philander C. Knox was never appointed into the “Office” of Secretary of State by a legitimate President of??The??United States of America (infra.?/), there is no legitimate (“dejure”) “Proclamation(s) of Ratifications” for the Fourteenth (14th) Amendment leaving the?Amendment to be “null and void” Ab?Inito.With the “assassination” of President Lincoln by John Wilkes Booth,?/ {with the aid of Samuel Arnold,/ George Atzerodt,/ David Herold,/ Michael?O'Laughlen,/ Lewis?Powell (also known as Lewis?Paine), John?Surratt, and???Mary???Surratt, [all of whom were “Catholic Jesuits”?/ or??“Jesuit”??sympathizers]}, the states (and the people) were compelled by????“Force????of????Arms” of the “Military” to adopt the???Fourteenth and??Fifteenth??(15th)??Amendments as Amendments to the Constitution for?The?United?States of?America.?For the detailed history of the Fourteenth?(14th)?Amendment, you may view the “Treatise” on the “Internet” at: “”.To view a large resource of “Documents” on the Fourteenth?(14th)?Amendment, you may view those “Documents” on the “Internet” at: “”.Every “Judge” and “Justice” of our “Federal?Courts” and every “member” of the??U.S.?Congress that continues to use the Fourteenth?(14th)?Amendment in their?“Court?Opinions” and?“Statutes?at?Large” after being “noticed” by the “states” of the?“Union” that the Fourteenth and?Fifteenth?(15th)?Amendments are “null and void” Ab?Initio for “want of ratification,” they??are no longer acting in the “official capacity” of an?“Officer” of The United States of?America. ?They have lowered themselves down to the?status of being “usurpers” and?they should be removed from “Office” as such.ConclusionPlease take notice that each and every state of the south had created a “Constitution” for their state as required for “admission” into the Union. Every one of those states did create a “Republican Form of Government” as per requirement of Article?IV, Section?4, Clause?1 of the Constitution for The United States of America. Those states of the south did operate under their own “Constitutions” before, during, and with one state, after?the?Civil?War. This raises the question:“Why did the Congress of the northern states declare that a number of?southern?states had “no lawful governments” while another was allowed to keep its original Constitution and government? Answer: The southern state that was allowed to keep its Constitution and???government was the “State of Tennessee,” a state which cast its?“vote?of?ratification” on the Fourteenth (14th) Amendment; while those states that cast their?“votes of rejection” were placed under “Martial Law” and declared to?have?“unlawful?governments.”“The U.S. Congress of the year 1868 has taken the position that it has been empowered to not only propose Constitutional Amendments, but it also has been empowered to compel ratification of those Constitutional Amendments.”The issue is not the repeal of an Amendment, for the Fourteenth?(14th)?Amendment [and??other Amendments (infra.)] is not an Amendment to the Constitution for???The????United????States of America. The issue is the “purging” of all??nonexistent??Amendments, (such as the Fourteenth (14th) Amendment) from the??Constitutions of the states and of The United States of America. The “purging” of????nonexistent Constitutional Amendments from all Court Opinions, from?all?Statutes?at?Large, from?all?Law?Books of the states, and from all??Text??Books. You can only “repeal” legitimate Amendments (such as was done with the?Eighteenth?(18th)?Amendment with the use of?the TwentyFirst (21st) Amendment). You??cannot perform “impossibilities” by repealing something that does not exist, such?as?fraudulent Constitutional Amendments./ / / / // / / / // / / / / HYPERLINK \l "Amendments" Fifteenth AmendmentIntroductionWhat is stated in the Fourteenth???(14th)???Amendment applies to the???Fifteenth???(15th)???Amendment. The southern states were “expelled” from the??U.S.?Congress with their Representatives not being allowed to “debate” or???cast???“votes”???on the “Joint???Resolution” of February 26, 1869 proposing the?Fifteenth?(15th)?Amendment.Statement of FactsThe following state of the Union has gone on record to declare the??Fifteenth?(15th)?Amendment to not been “proposed” nor “ratified” as mandated by?Article?V of the Constitution for The United States of America. State of Oregon “Whereas the State of Oregon was, on the 14th day of February, A.D.?1859, admitted into the Federal Union vested with the right to declare what???persons should be??entitled to vote within her boundaries; and?until?she, by her voluntary act, surrenders that right, the Congress of the United States has no authority to??interfere with the conditions of??suffrage within the boundaries of the?State?of?Oregon; and whereas the??Congress of the?United?States, by means of an arbitrary majority of?votes acquired by the power of the bayonet, has sought to force upon the several States the?so-called Fifteenth (15th) Amendment to the??Federal??Constitution, in??direct violation of the terms under which the?State of Oregon was admitted into the sisterhood of States: Therefore, “Be it resolved by the senate, (the house concurring,) that the so-called Fifteenth?(15th)?Amendment is an infringement upon the popular rights, and a??direct falsification of the pledges made to the State of Oregon by the?Federal?Government. “Resolved, That the said Fifteenth (15th) Amendment be, and the same is?hereby, rejected. …” [Emphasis added]. FORTY-FIRST CONGRESS, 3d Session, (“Miscellaneous Document No. 56”) /We must not overlook the fact that that Philander C. Knox (infra.?/) held no??lawful??“Office”? of the??government of The United States of America for there was no-one that had the “Office Qualifications” to appoint Philander C. Knox into???the?????“Office” of “U.S.??Secretary of State.” At the time that the??Fifteenth?(15th)?Amendment was purportedly ratified, there was no-one in??“Office” that had authority to issue forth “Proclamations of Ratification” (including?Philander C. Knox) leaving the Fifteenth (15th) Amendment without authority to be an “Amendment” to the Constitution for The United States of?America.ConclusionFor the reasons stated herein, the Fifteenth (15th) Amendment is not an “Amendment” to the Constitution for The?United?States of?America. ?The Fifteenth (15th) Amendment is to??be “purged” from all “Constitutions,” all “Statutes?at?Large,” from all “Court Rulings,” from?all?“Law?Books” of the “states,” and from all other “Publications.” / / / / / // / / / / // / / / / / HYPERLINK \l "Amendments" Sixteenth AmendmentIntroductionLike many “Constitutional?Amendments” which were submitted to the “Legislatures” of the?states of the Union for ratification, the Sixteenth (16th) Amendment was not uniform in its writings. These “defects” were exposed and presented to the “members” of the?U.S.?Congress and to the Federal Courts with both of those branches of?“Government” proclaiming that the “questions of ratification” were “Political?Questions” which could (would) not be?addressed.?/You may view those “defects” within a “Federal Court Document” entitled: “DEFENDANT’S??‘THE LAW THAT NEVER WAS’ BRIEF” as presented in???the????“U.S.????District Court, Northern District of Illinois, Eastern District” as??“Number?04C?7403” in a case entitled: “UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff vs. WILLIAM J. BENSON, Defendant.” This “Legal Brief” may be viewed as a?“PDF?Document” on the “Internet” at?“”.The “U.S. Congress” had previously introduced an “Income Tax” during the “Civil War” of?186165, but this “Tax” had been “repealed” in 1872. In 1894, the U.S. Congress passed the “Wilson-Gorman Tariff Act,”?/ which lowered “Tariff Rates” and made up for?some of?the?lost revenue by introducing “Taxes” on “Income,” “Corporate Profits,” “Gifts,” and?“Inheritances.” Chief Justice Melville Fuller's majority opinion in?Pollock?v.?Farmers' Loan &??Trust??Company?/ held that a “Federal Tax” on “Income” derived from “property” was??“unconstitutional” when it was not apportioned among the????states according to representation in the United States House of??Representatives.?/ Justice???Fuller also held that “Federal Taxation” on “Interest” earned on certain “State Bonds” violated the???doctrine???of???“Intergovernmental Tax?Immunity.”?/ With the purported “ratification” of?Sixteenth?(16th)?Amendment, the case of?Pollock was mooted.Statement of FactsThere is a major problem with the Sixteenth (16th) Amendment which has never been?addressed – the Amendment was never “approved” by “ratification” of the “people” sitting in?“Convention” of the “states.” The purported Sixteenth (16th) Amendment is a “fraud” for it is being used to move the??“property” of the “people” into the hands of the Papacy of the Catholic Church (“Vatican?City?State”)?/ via a “Private Bank” known as the “Federal Reserve Bank.”?/ The??“Board of Governors” for the “Federal Reserve Bank” (and the??“political elite” of?“Washington, D.C.”) have presented us with a view that the “Federal Reserve Bank” is???an???“internal agency” of the “government” of The United States of America which?is?totally?false: “Federal reserve banks are not federal instrumentalities for purposes of a??Federal?Tort Claims Act, but are independent, privately owned and locally controlled corporations in light of fact that direct supervision and control of each bank is?exercised by board of directors, federal reserve banks, though heavily regulated, are locally controlled by their member banks, banks are listed neither as?“wholly?owned” government corporations nor as “mixed ownership” corporations; federal reserve banks receive no appropriated funds from Congress and the banks are empowered to sue and be sued in their own names. . . .” [Emphasis added].Lewis v. United States, 680 F.2d 1239 (1982)The Constitution for The United States of America at Article?V provides for the?“procedure” to be used to “alter” or “amend” that Constitution. This?Article?V states in part:“…. shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or???by???Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the??other??Mode?of??Ratification may be proposed by the Congress;?….” [Emphasis added].Now the question arises: “Why did the Founding Fathers provide that the?ratification of Constitution Amendments may be done by Conventions”?There are instances in which a “Politician” has no authority (“Jurisdiction”) over the?“people,” one of those instances is the “taking” and using “property” of the?“people” without their “consent”: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and??effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be??violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to???be???searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” [Emphasis added] Article Four of the Bill of Rights to the Constitution for The?United?States of?America.? “…. nor shall private property be taken for public use without just?compensation.” [Emphasis added]. Article Five of the Bill of Rights to the Constitution for The?United?States of?America.?The “money” of the “people” is just one of those instances, for “money” (in the hands of the “people”) is “private property.” No “Legislator” of any of the states of the Union has ever been granted the “powers” to levy a “tax” upon the “people” without authority of a Constitution as ratified in “Convention” of the “people” of?their?“state,” so it is with the “members” of the “U.S. Congress.” It is true that the Constitution for The?United?States of?America was ratified by the?“people” sitting in “Convention” of the “states” (see “U.S. Constitution, Article?VII”): “Done in convention by unanimous consent of the states present the?seventeenth day of September in the year of our Lord one thousand seven???hundred and eighty-seven and of the Independence of The?United?States of?America the twelfth.?…; and?…” [Emphasis added].It is also true that the Constitution for The?United?States of?America has provisions to provide for the “taxation” of the “people” and it does set forth the “procedures” for?levying that “tax”: “No capitation, or other direct, tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to?the?census or enumeration hereinafter directed to be taken.” [Emphasis added]. U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 9, Clause 4 “No tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any state.” [Emphasis added]. U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 9, Clause 5 As it took a “Constitutional Convention” to approve the “Clauses” of “Taxation” of the??“Constitution” for The United States of America (authorizing the taking of??“property” of the “people” for “public use”), the same is true when it comes to the???“altering” or “amending” of the “mode of collection” of those “taxes” as??set??forth by the Sixteenth (16th) Amendment. As the “Clauses” of “Taxation” of the??“Constitution” for The United States of America required the “approval” of the??“people” setting in “Constitutional???Conventions” of the “states,” so it is with a??“Constitutional??Amendment” to “alter” or “amend” those “Clauses” of “Taxation.” As the Sixteenth (16th) Amendment to the Constitution “was never” submitted to a??“Convention” of the “states” for “ratification,” it exist in “fraud” and is required to be???“purged” from all “Constitutions,” from all “Law Books,” from all?“Court?Records,” and?from all “Text?Books.” As the Sixteenth (16th) Amendment to the Constitution for The United States of?America does not have a “lawful” (“dejure”) existence, the “Internal Revenue Code” (as codified in “Statutes at Large”?/ and “Title 26, United?States?Code”?/) has??problems as many of its “Sections” are “repugnant” to??U.S.?Constitution, Article?I, Section?9, Clause?4. The? “taxes” on “Income” are being “assessed” as a “direct tax” derived from “property” without being??“apportioned” to the “census” or? without “enumeration” as ruled upon???by???Chief???Justice Melville Fuller?/ in Pollock??v.??Farmers' Loan &??Trust??Company, 157 U.S. 429 (1895) (supra.). The offending “Sections” of the?“Statutes at Large” and within “Title 26, United?States?Code” needs to?be?“purged.”ConclusionWithout the “consent” of the?“people” sitting in “Conventions” of the “states,” there????were????no????“members” of the U.S.??Congress that had authority to?propose?“Constitutional Amendments” to “alter” the scheme of “taxation” as set forth by??the??“Constitution” for The United States of America. The “U.S. Congress” had no???authority to declare the Sixteenth (16th) Amendment (an “Amendment” which?“confiscates” the “money” {“property”} of the “people” in the name of “taxes”) was to be?“ratified” by??“Legislatures” of the “states” without consent of the “people,” nor were there any?“Member” of the “Legislatures” of the “states” of the “Union” that had authority of the???“people” to cast “votes of ratification” on “money confiscation schemes” with?“Constitutional?Amendments,” such as with the?Sixteenth?(16th)?Amendment. As the Sixteenth (16th) Amendment “was not” ratified by the “people” sitting in???“Conventions”???of the “states” as mandated by Article?V of the Constitution for??The??United??States??of??America, it is not an “Amendment” to the U.S.?Constitution. The??Sixteenth??(16th)??Amendment needs to be “purged” from all “Text Books,” from???all???“Rulings” of the “Courts,” from??the??“Statutes at Large,” from all “Law Books” of???the???“states,” from all “Constitutions” of the “states,” and from the “Constitution” of?“The?United?States of?America.”Again, we must not overlook the fact that that Philander C. Knox (infra.?/) held no?lawful?“Office” of the government of The United States of America for there was noone that had the “Office Qualifications” to appoint Philander C. Knox into the “Office” of??“U.S.??Secretary of State.” At the time when the Sixteenth (16th) Amendment was purportedly “ratified,” there was no-one in “Office” (including Philander C. Knox) that????had????“authority” to issue forth “Proclamations of Ratification” leaving the???Sixteenth??(16th)??Amendment without authority to be an “Amendment” to the?“Constitution” for The United States of America./ / / / / // / / / / // / / / / / HYPERLINK \l "Amendments" Seventeenth AmendmentIntroductionThe “Americans” did not directly vote for “Senators” for the first 125 years of the?Federal?Government. The Constitution, as it was adopted in 1788, stated that?“Senators” would be elected by “state Legislators.”?/ The first “proposal” to amend the??Constitution to elect “Senators” by “popular vote” was introduced in the?U.S.?House of??Representatives in 1826, but the idea did not gain considerable support until the??late??“19th?Century” when several problems related to Senate??elections had become?evident. Several “state Legislatures” deadlocked over the election of?“Senators” which led to Senate vacancies lasting months, and even years. In other cases, “political?machines” gained control over “state Legislatures,” and the “Senators” elected with their support, were dismissed as “Puppets.” In addition, the Senate was seen as a??“millionaire's club” serving powerful “private interests.” The rise of the “People's Party,” commonly referred to as the “Populist Party,” added “motivation” for making the?Senate more directly accountable to the “people.” During the 1890s, the House of Representatives passed several “Resolutions” proposing a “Constitutional?Amendment” for the direct election of “Senators.” Each time, however, the???Senate refused to even take a vote. When it seemed unlikely that both???Houses???of???Congress would pass “legislation” proposing an “Amendment” for?direct?election, many?states changed strategies. Article?V of the?U.S.?Constitution states that Congress must call a “Convention” for proposing Amendments when?twothirds?(?rd) of the state Legislatures apply for one. Although the method had never previously been used, many states began sending Congress “Applications” for?“Conventions.” As the number of “Applications” neared the twothirds?(?rd)?bar, Congress finally acted.Statement of Facts Philander??C.??Knox, play acting as “Secretary of State,” introduced the?“Seventeenth (17th) Amendment” into “Congress.” Comment: It is noted that Philander C. Knox held no lawful “Office” of the?government of The?United?States of?America for William Howard Taft was not a U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 “natural??born??Citizen” of the “United?States,” qualifying him for the “Office” of?President of?The?United?States of?America.As William Howard Taft was born within a “Territory” (“Ohio”), / which did?not have the status of being a state of The?United?States of?America, he??most likely did not have the status of being a “Citizen” of the?“United?States,” / not to mention not having the required status of being a “natural born Citizen” for want of the existence of the?Fourteenth?(14th)?Amendment / (a required status of “citizenship” for the “Office” of “President” of The United States of America.). As?“William?Howard?Taft” never had the “Office Qualifications” for the???“Office” of “President” for The United States of America, [President]??“Taft” never had any authority to appoint anyone into a???“Cabinet???Office” of the “Executive Branch” of government, including?“Philander?C.?Knox” being appointed into the “Cabinet Office” of?“U.S. Secretary of State.” The proof to be found that “Ohio” was not a state of the Union during the??years that “Knox” served his term as “U.S.?Secretary of State,” (which?was from??March 4, 1905 to March 4, 1911) is found in the fact that the EightyThird (83rd) Congress found the need to?enact?“Public?Law?204, 83rd?Congress, 1st?Session”?/ to admit “Ohio” into the “Union” as a “state.”But even then we see that “Section 2” of that “Public Law 204” (identified as a?“Joint Resolution”) has a problem for we find: “This Joint Resolution shall take effect as of March?1,?1803. Approved August 7, 1953.” There are no provisions in the U.S.?Constitution that authorizes the???retroactive admission of states into the Union with what may be?classified as an “Ex Post Facto Law”:?/ “Ex post facto is most typically {having exceptions} used to refer to a???criminal statute that punishes actions retroactively, thereby?criminalizing {legalizing} conduct that was legal {unlawful} when originally performed. There are two (2) “Clauses” in the?“United States Constitution” that prohibit “ex?post?facto?laws” [Emphasis added]:“Art. 1, § 9, Cl. 3”“This prohibits “Congress” from passing any laws which apply ex?post?facto. [Emphasis added].“Art. 1 § 10” “This prohibits the “states” from passing any laws which apply ex?post?facto.” [Emphasis added]. Legal Information Institute (LII) Furthermore, no U.S. Congress of today has any authority to speak for a?past?U.S. Congress leaving “Public Law 204, 83rd Congress, 1st Session” without “any effect”?Ab?Initio.The effective date of “March 1, 1803” is also “null and void” for “Ohio” was not admitted into the Union by the “Seventh (7th) Session” of the?U.S.?Congress [in?session from March 4, 1801 to March 4, 1803] leaving the “date of admission” of “Ohio” into the?“Union” to be?“without?effect” Ab?Initio.Another problem surfaces under this “Public Law 204.” The “members” of the?U.S. Congress used a “Resolution” to make a “Law” when the intent of the??“Founding??Fathers” was for only “Bills” to become “Law.” The use of?“Resolutions” were to be used for expressing an “opinion,” or to “censure” some?“person” or “action,” but?were never to become “Law.”It appears that even unto today, “Ohio” exist only as a “Territory” of?The?United States of America for there is no legitimate “Statute?at?Large” to be?found that admits the?“Territory?of?Ohio” into the?“Union” as a “state.”In the year of 1911, the “House of Representatives” passed “House???Joint???Resolution???39” proposing a “Constitutional Amendment” for??“direct??election” of “Senators.” However, it included a “race??rider” meant to?bar?“Federal?intervention” in cases of “racial discrimination” among “voters”: “The times, places, and manner of holding elections for Senators shall be as?prescribed in each State by the legislature thereof.” A substitute “amendment” by “Senator??Joseph??L.??Bristow” (R-KS) removed the??“race??rider.” The amended “Joint Resolution” was adopted by the??“U.S.?Senate” on a “close vote” in May of 1911. Over a year later, the????“U.S.??House” accepted the change, and the proposed “Constitutional??Amendment” was sent to the states for “ratification.” On???April?8,?1913, threequarters???(?ths) of the states had “ratified” the?????proposed?????“Amendment” and it was officially included as the??“Seventeenth?(17th)?Amendment.” This “Amendment” had the net effect of?destroying the “sovereignty” of government of the “states.”The Seventeenth (17th) Amendment was not “proposed” nor “ratified” as mandated by U.S. Constitution, Article?V: “The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it?necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, … and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the?Senate.” [Emphasis added].For there to be a legitimate “Joint???Resolution” proposing the?“Seventeenth?(17th)?Amendment” (an “Amendment” to provide for a “Senator” by “popular vote” of the “people” instead of being “appointed” by the Legislatures of the?several states of the Union), there must be an “unanimous vote” to be cast by every “member” of the “U.S. House of Representatives” and of the?“U.S.?Senate” on that “Joint?Resolution.” This did not happen. Many “Legislatures” of the?states were “out of session” during the time the?“ratification process” as set forth by the?U.S.?Congress took place, thus they have been deprived of their “suffrage” in the U.S. House of Congress and of?their?“equal suffrage” in the U.S. Senate. Here is the “Roll??Call??Vote” of June?12,?1911 on “House?Joint?Resolution?39” by??“members” of the U.S.?Senate as provided by “Records” of the “U.S.?Senate, National Archives and Records Administration”: (“”)Bacon - NayBailey - YeaBankhead - NayBorah - YeaBourne - YeaBradley – n/aBrandegee - NayBriggs - YeaBristow - YeaBrown - YeaBryan - YeaBurnham - NayBurton - YeaChamberlain - YeaChilton - YeaClapp - YeaClark, Wyo - YeaClark, Ark - YeaCrane - NayCrawford - YeaCulberson - YeaCullom - YeaCummins - YeaCurtis - YeaDavis - YeaDillingham - NayDixon - YeaDu Pont - YeaFletcher - NayFoster - NayFrye – n/aGallinger - NayGamble - YeaGore - YeaGronna - YeaGuggenheim - YeaHeyburn - NayHitchcock - YeaJohnson - YeaJohnston - NayJones - YeaKenyon - YeaKern - YeaLa Follette - YeaLea - YeaLippitt - NayLodge - NayLorimer - NayMcCumber - YeaMcLean - YeaMartin - YeaMartine - YeaMyers - YeaNelson - YeaNewlands - YeaNixon - YeaO’Gorman - YeaOliver - NayOverman – n/aOwen – n/aPage - NayPaynter - YeaPenrose - NayPercy - NayPerkins - YeaPoindexter - YeaPomerene - YeaRayner - YeaReed - YeaRichardson - NayRoot - NayShively - YeaSimmons - YeaSmith, Md - YeaSmith, Mich - YeaSmith, S. C. - YeaSmoot - NayStephenson - YeaStone - YeaSutherland - YeaSwanson - YeaTaylor - YeaTerrell - YeaThornton - YeaTillman – n/aTownsend - YeaWarren - YeaWatson - YeaWetmore - NayWilliams - NayWorks - Yea===========Because of the “non-participation” of several states in the casting of???“votes???of???approbation” on the “adoption” of the “Joint Resolution” (“H.J.?Res.?39”) (proposing the wording of the Seventeenth???(17th)???Amendment), those?nine?(9)?states have been deprived of their “rights” of “equal?suffrage” in?the?“U.S.?Senate.” The same is true of those states (“Delaware”?and?“Utah”) which their “Senators” formally “objected” to the “Joint Resolution” by casting a?“negative vote” on the?“Resolution.” ConclusionThe “U.S.???Secretary of State” announced, in the year of 1913, that??the??Seventeenth?(17th)?Amendment had been ratified by the Legislatures of????thirtysix??(36) of the fortyeight??(48) states of the Union. The?U.S.?Constitution, Article?V?(supra.) says all 100% of the states must be in agreement to any change in???their???voice in????the U.S.??Senate, not threequarters??(?th) as he announced. With???the???purported adoption of the Seventeenth??(17th)??Amendment, we see that??thirtysix??(36) states have forced a change on the other states in their equal voting?power in the?U.S.?Senate. All Constitutional Amendments adopted thereafter are “null and void” for want of a??legitimate (“dejure”) U.S. Congress to propose those “Amendments.” Most notable is the???Nineteenth (19th) Amendment in granting “Women” the “rights to vote” which the??Federal??Courts have proclaimed to be the authority for granting “Women” the??“Political??Powers” to hold “Public Offices” of the??government of The United States of??America. ?It should be noted that the???only???location to be found within the???U.S.??Constitution where the word “Suffrage” appears, is Article?V. The?word?“Suffrage” does not appear in the Fifteenth nor the Nineteenth Amendments, but only the?words: “to??vote,” and notwithstanding the “dictum”?/ opinions of “Judges,” there are no terms to???be???found within those Amendments that grants “Women” and??“Africans” the “Political Powers” to hold “Public Offices” of The?United?States of?America.?With the purported ratification of the Seventeenth (17th) Amendment to the?Constitution for The?United?States of?America, there are no longer any lawful (“dejure”) “Senators” in?“Office” that have lawful “authority” to participate in the creation of any “Tribunals” which where inferior to?the “Supreme?Court” as authorized by U.S.??Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 9 or to confirm any “Judge”?/?“Justice” into “Office” as required by?U.S.?Constitution, Article?II, Clause?2, Section?2 leaving the “people” of our “Nation” without any means of obtaining a “Redress of Grievances” or a “Resolution?of Disputes” between the states. All “Rulings” of??the??“U.S.?Supreme?Court,” and its “inferior Courts,” by??“Judicial??Officers” (that were [purportedly] confirmed into “Office” after the???date???of????April??8,??1913, the date of the purported “ratification” of the?Seventeenth?(17th)?Amendment), are all “null and void” as a matter of law.With the purported “ratification” of the Seventeenth (17th) Amendment to the Constitution for The United States of America, there were no longer any lawful (“dejure”) “Senators” in?“Office” that had lawful “authority” to propose “Amendments” to the Constitution for????The????United????States of America.? All “Joint Resolutions” proposing “Constitutional????Amendments” (which were “Debated” by Senators of the?Seventeenth?(17th)?Amendment) are all “null and void” for not being “accepted” by a???lawful (“dejure”)??“U.S.?Senate” leaving all “Constitutional Amendments” existing after the?purported “ratification” of the?Seventeenth (17th) Amendment to be “null and void” as a?matter of law. ConclusionThe Seventeenth (17th) Amendment, (and all “Constitutional Amendments” existing thereafter), need to be purged from the Constitution for?The?United?States of?America, purged from all “Law?Books,” purged from all?“Court Documents,” and purged from all?“Text?Books.” All “members” of the present day “Senate” of The?United?States of?America shall be?“expelled” from “Office” for want of “Office Qualifications.” They shall be replaced with????appointed????“Senators” of the “Legislators” of the states as mandated by?U.S.?Constitution, Article I, Section 3, Clause 1. / / / / / // / / / / // / / / / / HYPERLINK \l "Amendments" MiscellaneousOaths of OfficeThere are two (2) known groups of “people” whom occupies several seats in?both?“Houses” of??“Congress” for The United States of America that have “refused” to accept an?“Oath?of?Office” as required by “U.S.?Constitution, Article?VI, Section?1, Clause?3”: “The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, …. shall be bound by oath or?affirmation, to support this Constitution ….” [Emphasis added].These two (2) groups are referred to as “Jesuits”?/ of the “Catholic Church,”?/ and??as??“Jews.”?/ As evidence by the following “Oaths,” (which they have submitted themselves???to), none of the “members” of these two (2) groups have the???“Office???Qualifications”?/ to hold any “Office of Trust” of the government of?The?United?States of?America:HYPERLINK \l "Amendments"The Jewish Oath of Kol Nidre All “Jews” have an obligation to observe the yearly “Yom Kippur” / wherein the???“Jews” cites twice (for a total of three (3) iterations), the below Jewish?“Kol?Nidre”:?/ “All vows, and prohibitions, and oaths, and consecrations, and konams and??konasi and synonymous terms, that we may vow, or swear, or??consecrate, or prohibit upon ourselves, from the previous Day of?Atonement until this Day of Atonement and from this Day of Atonement until the [next] Day?of?Atonement that will come for our benefit. Regarding all of them, we repudiate them. All of them are undone, abandoned, cancelled, null?and?void, not in force, and not in effect. Our vows are no longer vows, and our prohibitions are no longer prohibitions, and our oaths are no?longer?oaths.” [Emphasis added].The Jewish Kol Nidre /?k??l n??dre?/ (also known as Kol Nidrey or Kol Nidrei)For a listing of “Jews” holding “Public Offices,” search the “Internet” for: “Jews” in the “U.S. Congress”; / and “Jews” as “Federal Judges.”??/Comment: Unless shown otherwise, all “Jews” (who hold “Public Offices of Trust” of the governments of the states and of The United States of America) have??“renounced” their “Oaths of Office” (implied or otherwise) to support the?“Constitutions” of “The?United?States of?America” and of the several states of the??“Union,” and when “Jews” renounce their “Oaths of Office,” they renounce the?“Public Office of Trust” of which they occupy. All “Jews” who occupy seats in the?U.S. Congress and of the Federal?Courts shall be “expelled” from “Office” as a?matter of law of the “Constitution” for The?United?States of?America.?The Jesuit Extreme Oath of Induction The following is the “Jesuit Extreme Oath of Induction” given to high ranking?“Jesuits”?only. This “Oath” is taken from the book “Subterranean Rome” by?Carlos?Didier, translated from the “French,” and published in “New York” in the?year of?1843. “When a Jesuit of the minor rank is to be elevated to command, he is conducted into the Chapel of the Convent of the Order, where there are only three others present, the principal or Superior standing in front of the altar. ?On either side stands a monk, one of whom holds a banner of yellow and white, which are the??Papal colors, and the other a black banner with a dagger and red cross above a skull and crossbones, with the word INRI, and below them the words IUSTUM, NECAR, REGES, IMPIOUS. The meaning of which is: It is just to?exterminate or annihilate impious or heretical Kings, Governments, or Rulers. Upon the floor is a red cross at which the postulant or candidate kneels. The?Superior hands him a small black crucifix, which he takes in his left hand and presses to his heart, and the Superior at the same time presents to him a?dagger, which he grasps by the blade and holds the point against his heart, the Superior still holding it by the hilt, and thus addresses the postulant: “Superior: “My son, heretofore you have been taught to act the dissembler: among Roman?Catholics to be a Roman Catholic, and to be a spy even among your own brethren; to believe no man, to trust no man. Among the Reformers, to be a reformer; among the Huguenots, to be a Huguenot; among the Calvinists, to?be a Calvinist; among other Protestants, generally to be a Protestant, and obtaining their confidence, to seek even to preach from their pulpits, and to denounce with all the vehemence in your nature our Holy Religion and the Pope; and even to?descend so low as to become a Jew among Jews, that you might be enabled to gather together all information for the benefit of your Order as a faithful soldier of the Pope. [Emphases added]. “You have been taught to insidiously plant the seeds of jealousy and hatred between communities, provinces, states that were at peace, and incite them to??deeds of blood, involving them in war with each other, and to create revolutions and Civil?Wars in countries that were independent and prosperous, cultivating the arts and the sciences and enjoying the blessings of peace. To?take sides with the combatants and to act secretly with your brother Jesuit, who might be engaged on the other side, but openly opposed to that with which you might be connected, only that the Church might be the gainer in the end, in??the conditions fixed in the treaties for peace and that the end justifies the?means. [Emphasis added]. “You have been taught your duty as a spy, to gather all statistics, facts??and??information in your power from every source; to ingratiate yourself into?the confidence of the family circle of Protestants and heretics of every class and character, as well as that of the merchant, the banker, the lawyer, among???the???schools and universities, in parliaments and legislatures, and??the??judiciaries and councils of state, and to be all things to all men, for?the?Pope's sake, whose?servants we are unto death. [Emphasis added]. “You have received all your instructions heretofore as a novice, a neophyte, and?have served as co-adjurer, confessor and priest, but you have not yet been invested with all that is necessary to command in the Army of Loyola in??the??service of the Pope. You must serve the proper time as the instrument and?executioner as directed by your superiors; for none can command here who has not consecrated his labors with the blood of the heretic; for?without?the?shedding of blood no man can be saved. Therefore, to fit yourself for your work and make your own salvation sure, you will, in addition to??your??former oath?of obedience to your order and allegiance to the Pope, repeat after me --- [Emphasis added].The Extreme Oath of the Jesuits “I, _ now, in the presence of Almighty God, the Blessed Virgin Mary, the???blessed???Michael the Archangel, the blessed St.?John the Baptist, the?holy?Apostles St.?Peter and St.?Paul and all the saints and sacred hosts of?heaven, and to you, my ghostly father, the Superior General of the Society of?Jesus, founded by St.?Ignatius Loyola in the Pontificate of Paul the Third, and?continued to the?present, do by the womb of the virgin, the matrix of God, and the rod of Jesus Christ, declare and swear, that his holiness the Pope is??Christ's??Viceregent and is the true and only head of the Catholic or??Universal??Church throughout the earth; and that by virtue of the keys of??binding and loosing, given to his Holiness by my Savior, Jesus Christ, he??hath??power to depose heretical kings, princes, states, commonwealths and?governments, all being illegal without his sacred confirmation and that they may safely be destroyed. Therefore, to the utmost of my power I shall and will defend this doctrine of his Holiness' right and custom against all usurpers of??the??heretical or Protestant authority whatever, especially the Lutheran of??Germany, Holland, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, and the now pretended authority and churches of England and Scotland, and branches of the same now??established in Ireland and on the Continent of America and elsewhere; and??all adherents in regard that they be usurped and heretical, opposing the???sacred Mother Church of Rome. I do now renounce and disown any?allegiance as due to any heretical king, prince or state named Protestants or Liberals, or obedience to any of the laws, magistrates, or officers. [Emphasis?added]. “I do further declare that the doctrine of the churches of England and Scotland, of the Calvinists, Huguenots and others of the name Protestants or Liberals to?be?damnable and they themselves damned who will not forsake the same. “I do further declare, that I will help, assist, and advise all or any of??his??Holiness'??agents in any place wherever I shall be, in Switzerland, Germany, Holland, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, England, Ireland, or America, or?in any other?Kingdom or territory I shall come to, and do my uttermost to??extirpate the???heretical Protestants or Liberals' doctrines and to destroy all?their pretended?powers, regal or otherwise. [Emphasis added]. “I do further promise and declare, that notwithstanding I am dispensed with, to??assume my religion heretical, for the propaganda of the Mother Church's interest, to keep secret and private all her agents' counsels from time to time, as?they may entrust me and not to divulge, directly or indirectly, by word, writing,?or circumstance whatever; but to execute all that shall be proposed, given?in?charge or discovered unto me, by you, my ghostly father, or any of?this?sacred covenant. [Emphasis added]. “I do further promise and declare, that I will have no opinion or will of my own, or???any mental reservation whatever, even as a corpse or cadaver (perinde?ac?cadaver), but will unhesitatingly obey each and every command that I may receive from my superiors in the Militia of the Pope and of Jesus Christ. [Emphasis added]. “That I may go to any part of the world withersoever I may be sent, to the frozen regions of the North, the burning sands of the desert of Africa, or the jungles of??India, to the centers of civilization of Europe, or to the wild haunts of?the?barbarous savages of America, without murmuring or repining, and will be?submissive in all things whatsoever communicated to me. [Emphasis added]. “I furthermore promise and declare that I will, when opportunity present, make and???wage relentless war, secretly or openly, against all heretics, Protestants?and?Liberals, as I am directed to do, to extirpate and exterminate them from the?face of the whole earth; and that I will spare neither age, sex?or?condition; and that I will hang, waste, boil, flay, strangle, and bury alive these infamous heretics, rip up the stomachs and wombs of their women and?crush their infants' heads against the walls, in order to annihilate forever their execrable race. That?when the same cannot be done openly, I will secretly use the poisoned cup, the strangulating cord, the steel of the poniard or the?leaden bullet, regardless of the honor, rank, dignity, or authority of the person or persons, whatever may be?their condition in life, either public or private, as?I?at?any time may be directed so to do by any agent of the Pope or Superior of the Brotherhood of the?Holy?Faith, of the Society of Jesus. [Emphasis added]. “In confirmation of which, I hereby dedicate my life, my soul and all my?corporal?powers, and with this dagger which I now receive, I will subscribe my name written in my own blood, in testimony thereof; and should I prove false or weaken in my determination, may my brethren and fellow soldiers of the Militia of the?Pope cut off my hands and my feet, and my throat from ear to ear, my?belly opened and sulphur burned therein, with all the punishment that can be inflicted upon me on earth and my soul be tortured by demons in an eternal hell forever! “All of which, I, _, do swear by the Blessed Trinity and blessed Sacraments, which?I am now to receive, to perform and on my part to keep inviolable; and???do???call all the heavenly and glorious host of heaven to witness the??blessed??Sacrament of the Eucharist, and witness the same further with my??name written and with the point of this dagger dipped in my own blood and?sealed in the face of this holy covenant. (He receives the wafer from the Superior and writes his name with the point of?his?dagger dipped in his own blood taken from over his heart.)“Superior: “You will now rise to your feet and I will instruct you in the Catechism necessary to make yourself known to any member of the Society of Jesus belonging to?this?rank. “In the first place, you, as a Brother Jesuit, will with another mutually make the??ordinary sign of the cross as any ordinary Roman Catholic would; then??one??cross his wrists, the palms of his hands open, and the other in answer crosses his feet, one above the other; the first points with forefinger of the?right?hand to the center of the palm of the left, the other with the forefinger of the??left??hand points to the center of the palm of the right; the first then with his?right hand makes a circle around his head, touching it; the other then with the forefinger of his left hand touches the left side of his body just below his heart; the first then with his right hand draws it across the throat of the other, and?the?latter then with a dagger down the stomach and abdomen of the first. The first then says Iustum; and the other answers Necar; the first Reges. The???other answers Impious. (The meaning of which has already been?explained.) The first will then present a small piece of paper folded in a??peculiar manner, four times, which the other will cut longitudinally and on?opening the name Jesu will be found written upon the head and arms of a??cross three times. You will then give and receive with him the following questions and answers:“Question — From whither do you come? “Answer — The Holy faith.“Question — Whom do you serve?“Answer — The Holy Father at Rome, the Pope, and the Roman Catholic Church Universal throughout the world.“Question — Who commands you?“Answer — The Successor of St.??Ignatius Loyola, the founder of the?Society?of?Jesus or the Soldiers of Jesus Christ.“Question — Who received you? “Answer — A venerable man in white hair.“Question — How?“Answer — With a naked dagger, I kneeling upon the cross beneath the banners of the Pope and of our sacred order.“Question — Did you take an oath?“Answer — I did, to destroy heretics and their governments and rulers, and??to??spare neither age, sex nor condition. To be as a corpse without any?opinion or will of my own, but to implicitly obey my Superiors in all things without hesitation of murmuring. [Emphasis added].“Question — Will you do that? “Answer — I will.“Question — How do you travel? “Answer — In the bark of Peter the fisherman.“Question — Whither do you travel? “Answer — To the four quarters of the globe. “Question — For what purpose?“Answer — To obey the orders of my general and Superiors and execute the will of the Pope and faithfully fulfill the conditions of my oaths.“Question — Go ye, then, into all the world and take possession of all lands in?the?name of the Pope. He who will not accept him as the Vicar of Jesus and??his??Vice-regent on earth, let him be accursed and exterminated.” [Emphasis added].Comment: All “Catholics” (who hold “Public Offices of Trust” of the governments of the states and of The United States of America) have renounced their??“Oaths??of??Office” (implied or otherwise) to support the Constitutions of?The?United?States of?America and of the several states of the Union. As???they have renounced all “Oaths of Office,” they have renounced the?“Public?Office of?Trust” of which they occupy. The “people,” in and through their “Constitutional Conventions,” did adopt and ratify the???Constitution for The United States of America wherein they did declare in????Article???I, Section 5, Clause 1 that each “House” shall be?sole?“Judge” of the?“qualifications” of its “Members”: “Each House shall be the judge of the elections, returns and qualifications of??its??own members, and a majority of each shall constitute a quorum to??do??business; but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day, and may be?authorized to compel the attendance of absent members, in such manner, and?under such penalties as each House may provide.” [Emphasis added]This “Clause 1” of the “U.S. Constitution” is not an authorization for the members of the???“U.S.??Congress” to seat a “Nominee” for either “House” absent the?required?“qualifications” as set forth in the U.S. Constitution, but to the contrary; it??is??a ?“mandate” for both “Houses” of “Congress” to “investigate,” “verify,” and?“record” each?“Members” constitutional “qualifications”: Member candidate has attain the age twenty-five (25) years for the?House?of?Congress; / and Member candidate has been seven (7) years a Citizen of the?United?States for the House of Congress; / and Member candidate was not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that state in?which he shall be chosen for the House of Congress or for the?U.S.?Senate;?/ and Member candidate has attain the age thirty (30) years for the?U.S.?Senate;?/ and Member candidate has been nine (9) years a Citizen of the?United?States for the U.S. Senate; / and Member candidate has taken an “Oath or Affirmation” to support the?Constitution for The?United?States of?America.?/ All “Catholics” (whom occupies seats in the “U.S. Congress” and of the “Federal?Courts”) shall be “expelled” from “Office” for renouncing their “Office of Trust” when they renounced their “Oath of Office.” For a listing of “Catholics” holding “Public Offices,” search the “Internet” for: “Catholics” in the “U.S. Congress”; / and “Catholics” as “Federal Judges.”??/Within the “Catholic Church,”?/ the rights (“duties”) of the “Catholic Laity,”?/ in regards to the?“Church,” are found in the “Code of Canon Law.”?/ A new “Code of Canon Law” was promulgated in 1983 to incorporate teachings from the “Second Vatican Council.”?/ In??particular, “Canons 224-231”?/ of the “1983 Code” outlining the general and specific “canonical rights” of “lay persons” in the “Catholic Church.” Under the “Code of Canon Law,” the “Catholic laity Allegiance” is with the “Papacy” of??“Vatican??City??State,” not with the “people” of “The United States of?America.” (see?“Vatican?Council?II, Lumen Gentium § 12” /).Furthermore, as the “Jesuits” are of a “Secret Society” as organized by the??foreign??“Nation” of??“Vatican City State” - and as there are no means by which to???identify those who are “Jesuits” from those who are “lay persons” of the??“Catholic??Church,” a presumption must exist that all “Catholics” are “Jesuits” or?“Jesuit Sympathizers” and they need to be treated as?such.Be advised that all the assassinated “Presidents” of “The United States of America,” from?“Abraham?Lincoln” to “John?F.?Kennedy” appears to have been “Assassinated” by?“Jesuits” of the?“Catholic Church.” The common theme for all those “Assassinations” is the control of the issuance of “Money” for the nation of The United States of America. Those?“Assassinations” began with the issuance of “Green Backs” by “Abraham Lincoln” to the?issuance of?“United?States?Notes” by “John?F.?Kennedy.” CorporationsThe “Chief Justice Marshall” ruled In the infamous case of “Marbury v. Madison, 17?U.S.?316”?(1819),?/ that the government of The United States of America was granted authority by the U.S. Constitution to issue forth “Charters of Incorporations.” With?respect to be given, “Chief Justice Marshall” does error.This case of “Marbury v. Madison” was brought to the “Court” challenging the authority for the “U.S. Congress” to create a “National Bank” through the use of??“Charters??of??Incorporation.” This case also ruled upon the “immunity” of the?government of The United States of America to??have its “Instrumentalities,” such as its?“National Banks,” from being subjected to the?“taxation?powers” of a state. In this lengthy “Ruling” of the “Court,” “Chief Justice Marshall” goes to great lengths to??apply the “Necessary and Proper Clause” of Article?I, Section?8, Clause?18 of the??Constitution for The?United?States of?America as the authority for the creation of??“Corporations,” but failed to apply the “Reports” of the August??18th,??1787 “Constitutional Convention” and of the September 14th, 1787 “Constitutional??Convention.” These “Reports” of the “Constitutional Convention” document the “Proposal” of “Delegate Madison” to include the “Power” to grant “Charters?of?Incorporation” for the “General Legislature” into the proposed “Constitution” for “The?United?States of?America”: “August 18, 1787 Convention / “MR.?Madison submitted in order to be referred to the Committee of?detail the following powers as proper to be added to those of the?General Legislature. [Emphasis added]. “………………. “To grant charters of incorporation in cases where the public good may require them, and the authority of a single State may be incompetent. [Emphasis added]. “……………….”____________________________________ “September 14th, 1787 Convention / “Doc Franklin moved to add after the words post roads Art?I, Sect.,?8. a?power to provide for cutting canals where deemed necessary. [Emphasis added]. “MR.?Wilson 2nd the motion. [Emphasis added]. “Mr, Sherman objected ….. “MR.?Wilson. Instead of an expense ….. “MR.?Madison suggested an enlargement of the motion into a power to?grant charters of incorporations where the interest of the U.S. might?require & the legislative provisions of individual States may be?incompetent. …. [Emphasis added]. “MR.?Randolph 2nd the proposition. “MR.?King thought the power unnecessary. [Emphasis added]. “MR.?Wilson. It is necessary to prevent a State from obstructing the?general welfare. “MR.?King. The States will be prejudiced and divided into parties by it. In?Philad & New York, it will be referred to the establishment of a Bank, which has been a subject of contention in these Cities. In other places it?will be referred to mercantile monopolies. “MR.?Wilson. Mentioned the importance of facilitating by canals, …. . as?to Banks, he did not think with MR.?King that the power in that point of?view would excite the prejudices & parties apprehended. As?to?mercantile monopolies, they are already included in the power to?regulate?trade. “Col. MASON was for limiting the power in the single case of Canals. He?was afraid of monopolies of every sort, which he did not think were by?any means already implied by the Constitution as supposed by?MR.?Wilson. [Emphasis added]. “The motion as modified as to admit a distinct question specifying & limited to the case of canals, [Emphasis added].N.H.?no. Mas.?no. Ct.?no. N.J.?no. PA.?ay. Del.?no. Md.?no. VA.?ay. N.C.?no. S.C.?no. Geo.?ay. “The other part fell of course, as including the power [to grant charters of?incorporations] rejected.” [Emphasis added]. “Chief Justice Marshall” (supra.) made the following statement: “The power of establishing a corporation is not a distinct sovereign power or end of Government, but only the means of carrying into effect other powers which are?sovereign. Whenever it becomes an appropriate means of exercising any of the?powers given by the Constitution to the Government of the Union, it may be?exercised by that Government. “If a certain means to carry into effect of any of the powers expressly given by the??Constitution to the Government of the Union be an appropriate measure, not??prohibited by the Constitution, the degree of its necessity is a question of?legislative discretion, not of judicial cognizance.”He then expounds upon the “justification” of his statement.As we see from the “Record” of the “Constitutional Convention” of 1787, the “Delegation” of the states of the “Union” sitting in a “Constitutional Convention” has defined the??creation??of ?“Charters of Corporations” to be an exercise of a “Sovereign Power” that???every???state???possessed. We also see that “George Mason IV,” (sitting?as a???“Convention???Delegate” for the “State of Virginia”) suggested that this???“Sovereign???Power” of the states should be delegated to the government of?The?United?States of?America in the form of a “Clause” to “Article I, Section 8” of the?proposed “Constitution.” The fact that this “Sovereign Power” to create “Charters of Corporations” does not appear in the present day “U.S. Constitution” is a fact that cannot be viewed to be an “oversight,” (as???suggested by “Chief Justice Marshall”). The “Founding Fathers” (sitting in a?“Constitutional Convention”) were “deliberate” in their “raising,” “debating,” and the??“casting” of???“votes???of???rejection” upon “Delegate Madison’s” “proposal” to include the????“Sovereign????Power” to create “Charters of Incorporation” into their proposed???“Constitution” leaving this “Sovereign Power” out of reach of the??“U.S.?Congress” to use as a “Law” that shall be “Necessary and Proper” (for?carrying?into execution of the foregoing powers) as stated in “Article I, Section 8” of?the?“Constitution” for “The United States of America.”As the authority to create “Charters of Incorporation” was identified to be a???“Sovereign???Power” by “Delegates” of the states of the “Union” (sitting in a?“Constitutional?Convention”), those “Delegates” were speaking for the governments of??their states on the authority of their states. It is the “states” of the “Union” that have???“declared” that the creation of “Charters of Corporation” is an exercise of?“Sovereign?Powers” which is to be “reserved” exclusively to their “states.” The government of The?United?States of?America had no “Powers” of its own at the time of its founding. All “Powers” exercised were delegated to The?United?States of?America when those states were sitting in the “Confederation of States” of 1778 and in the??“Constitutional??Convention” of 1787. For the government of The United States of??America to exercise the “Sovereign Power” to create “Charters of Incorporation,” the???“U.S.??Congress” is “required” to obtained authority to do so from the states via?a?“Constitutional Amendment.” [See “Article X” of the “Bill of Rights” to the?“Constitution” for?“The?United?States of?America”]: “The powers not delegated to the United?States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.” [Emphasis added]. Be advised that any “Power” taken under consideration during the creation of a??“Constitution” by a “Constitutional Convention” and being expressly “rejected” by the??“Delegates” of the states sitting in that “Convention,” is a statement that the?“Delegates” of the “Convention” have “reserved” to the?states the “Sovereign?Power” to create “Charters of Incorporation” and has “prohibited” its use by the?government of?The United States of?America.All “Charters of Incorporation,” (as created by the “Congress” for The United States of?America), were created without a grant of authority by any of the original “thirteen?(13)?states” sitting in??“Convention” leaving all those “Charters of Incorporation” to be “null and void” Ab?Initio.There is no lawful (“Charter of Incorporated”) “Federal?Reserve Bank” and there is?no lawful (“Charter of Incorporated”) “Internal Revenue Service.” There is no lawful (“Charter of Incorporated”) “U.S. Postal Service” nor is there any other lawful??“Congressional” created (“Charters of Incorporation”) “Quasi Government Agencies.” The list of unlawful “Charters?of?Incorporation” just goes on and on, just as feared by the?“Delegates” of the?states sitting in the “Constitutional Convention” of 1787. / / / / // / / / // / / / /ConclusionThis “Document” was written with the view of “Originalism.”?/ “Originalism,” in all its various forms, is predicated on a specific view of what the???“Constitution” is; a view articulated by “Chief Justice John Marshall” in the case of?“Marbury?v.?Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803)”: “[T]he Constitution organizes the government, and assigns to different departments their respective powers. It may either stop here; or establish certain limits not to be transcended by those departments. The government of the?United?States is of the latter description. The powers of the legislature are?defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken or forgotten, the??Constitution is written. To what purpose are powers limited, and to what??purpose is that limitation committed to writing; if these limits may, at?any?time, be?passed by those intended to be restrained?” “Originalism” assumes that “Marbury” (supra.) is correct: the “Constitution” is the?operating “Charter” granted to government by the people, as per the?Preamble?/ to the??“United??States??Constitution,” and its written nature introduces a certain discipline into???its???interpretation. “Originalism” further assumes that the need for such a??“Written??Charter” was derived from the perception (on the part of the?“Framers”) of???the???abuses of power under the (unwritten) “British?Constitution,” under which the?“Constitution” was essentially whatever “Parliament” decided it?should?be. In writing out a “Constitution” which explicitly granted the government certain authorities, (and??withheld from it others), and in which power was balanced between multiple??“Agencies” (the “Presidency,” two (2) Chambers of “Congress” and the???“Supreme???Court” at the national level, and “state governments” of the??“United??States” with similar branches), the intention of the “Framers” was to??restrain??government - “Originalists” argue, and the value of such a “Document” is?“nullified” if?that?“Document's” meaning is not fixed. As one “Author” stated:“If the Constitution can mean anything, then the?Constitution is reduced to?meaninglessness.”“That certain words may have developed different meanings over time is?inadmissible as??an argument for construing the “Constitution.” For this particular procedure would?amount, not to reinterpretation, but to misinterpretation. To?be?sure, in the course of time, as is often the case with language, the meaning of words or terms is changed; but, even so, the meaning of the “Constitution” does not change “pari?passu.”?/ “The?meaning of??constitutional provisions is changeless;? .?.?. only their application .?.?. is?extensible.?/ What??the “Constitution” meant once adopted it still means for the?purpose of interpretation,?/?notwithstanding the swings in public opinion at??home, and??abroad,?/ changes in the ebb and flow of economic events,?/ or shifts in?public?policy.?/Fair Use Notice Legal DisclaimerThe information contained in this “Document” is provided on an “as is” basis with no??guarantees of completeness, accuracy, usefulness or timeliness and without warranties of any kind whatsoever, express or implied. This “Document” may contain copyrighted material, the use of which may not have been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. This material is available in an effort to???explain issues relevant to the “Amendments” to the “Constitution” for?“The??United??States of??America” and other references or to illustrate the use and?benefits of an educational tool. The material of this “Document” is distributed without profit for research and educational purposes. Only small portions of the original work are being used and those, to best of knowledge, could not be used easily to duplicate the?original work.This should constitute a “fair use” of any such copyrighted material referenced and??provided for by in “17 U.S. Code § 107” (“Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair?use”).?/ Gordon Warren EpperlyP.O. Box 34358Juneau, Alaska 99803 ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download