Chapter 3. Will the
real government please stand up!
9/05/97
After writing British Colony parts 1&2 I was amazed how some people
react, when confronted with information that goes against their prior programming.
It is as if to even consider the threat to their mental well being.
They were going to deny any truth that threatens their belief structure.
The good news is those with such a reaction were of the minority.
This is promising, because it shows Americans can still think past years
of incomplete teaching, concerning our history. Those in the negative
believe the information had to be bogus and they could not believe the
government could wrong them.
So this third part is for them, to show them that government has and does
lie to them and violates their trust on major issues. As always this
information and supporting documents, are given so the reader can form
their own opinion. Other writers, I will mention one since he uses
a pen name, the Informer, has also
done extensive research
on this subject and has been forced to come to the same conclusions.
(Check out the latest work of the Informer, his new book called, THE NEW
HISTORY OF AMERICA.)
The information the Informer and I have found is so clear and undeniable,
even the doubting thomas' will have to face reality. Not to make
us right, but for America to become aware of lost history, that neither
of us formed, but are willing to be
Guide to the Footnotes:
1. Quotes on the fraudulent
ramification of the 14th. Amendment.
2. Tulane Law Review
vol. 28 1953, The Dubious Origin Of The
Fourteenth
Amendment, by Walter J. Suthon, Jr.
3. Reconstruction Act
of March 2, 1867.
4. Reconstruction Act
of March 11, 1868.
5. Reconstruction Act
of March 23, 1867.
6. Reconstruction Act
of July 19, 1867.
7. President Lincoln's
Proclamation of Amnesty & Reconstruction.
8. Veto message by President
Johnson, March 2, 1867.
9. Gen. Orders No. 100
by President Lincoln, April 24 1863.
10.Court cases on Conquest
and Military Occupation.
11.Letter I wrote to
a local sheriff, August 27, 1995.
12.New Jersey's removal
of their ratification of the 14th
Amendment.
13.Addendum
I will begin with the touchstone of the patriot community, the Fourteenth
Amendment. Everyone knows about the citizenship issue. I raised
another issue concerning the 4th section of the Fourteenth Amendment in
British Colony part 1, and issues regarding sec. 3, in court documents
found in Footnote 13.
Doubting thomas' think
this is a conspiracy theory. In the new propaganda movie called "Conspiracy
Theory", the establishment wants you to think that anyone that believes
there is someone behind the scenes calling the shots is mentally unbalanced.
What the doubting thomas' do not realize, is this is a big puzzle and
is hard to recognize,
and can be incorrectly viewed. The biggest problem is, it can be
put together more than one way, totally changing its appearance and outcome.
The doubting thomas' may say how is it you think you have the correct
pieces? My answer is, I shoot a lot of archery, in archery you shoot
for the bullseye, not the less important areas outside the bullseye.
You have to stay focused on what are the core issues, not the side issues/collateral
issues, where valuable time is lost. I conduct my research in this
way. Two, I rely on God Almighty to keep me pointed in the right
direction. Three, I always tell you not to take my word without checking
the subject out for yourself. Most people if plagued with a recurring
headache, take a pain reliever, and the headache appears to go away.
When in fact all you have done is deal with a symptom, that caused the
headache. You have not dealt with the cause. Many patriots
today are dealing with the symptoms, like taxes, driving v. traveling
and the zipcode, etc. etc. All are important issues and have their
place, but they are not the root cause of our problem. Until the
cause of the affliction is researched, exposed and then removed, nothing
will change.
The lawful de jure united States government which was created by the 1787
Constitution/Treaty, between the States, was made null and void by the
fraudulent Congress, that passed the Fourteenth Amendment. This is
a bold and broad statement, but I will prove it.
"When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into
an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all
the guarantees of republican government in the Union, attached at once
to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was
something more than
a compact; it was the
incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final.
The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual,
and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was
no place for reconsideration, or revocation, except through revolution,
or through consent of the States." Dyett v. Turner 439 p2d 266 @
"Considered therefore as transactions under the Constitution, the ordinance
of secession, adopted by the convention and ratified by a majority of the
citizens of Texas, and all the acts of her legislature intended to give
effect to that ordinance, were absolutely null. They were utterly without
operation in law. The obligations of the State, as a member of the Union,
and of every citizen of the State, as a citizen of the United States, remained
perfect and unimpaired. It certainly follows that the State did not cease
to be a State, nor her citizens to be citizens of the Union. If this
were otherwise, the State must have become foreign, and her citizens foreigners.
The war must have ceased to be a war for the suppression of rebellion,
and must have become a war for conquest of subjugation." Dyett v. Turner
439 p2d 266 @ 269, 20 U2d 403
The Southern States could not lawfully cede from the Union without the
other States being in agreement. In the last sentence you will notice
the war was either a rebellion or, the States were made foreign and conquest
and military rule took place during the Civil War. This is very important,
because of what took place next, and what took place after the Civil War
and March 9, 1933. March 2, 1867, President Johnson declared the
rebellion to be over and the Southern States to be once again part of the
Union, before the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendment were passed.
So the States were not foreign, they did not have to be readmitted, they
picked up in Congress where they left off, with the same State governments
they had before the rebellion. If the Southern States had ceded from
the Union, without sanction by all the States, their Legislative Acts would
have been null and void. In other words if a State or the federal
government violates their corporate Charter, it makes any subsequent law
The following information should upset you greatly and at the same time
amaze you, that Americans are totally unaware of this information.
How is it in the freest country in the world, and a nation that prides
itself on our history, could you have 200 plus million people ignorant
of the truth, and that care so little about the destruction of our country?
The information I am sharing with you is purposely not taught in the public
schools. Why? It will become clear to you that, if the government
taught this in the public schools, it would cause the rebirth of American
patriotism. Americans would demand our former overthrown Republican
form of government; and that the Laws of God Almighty be adhered to.
We were promised in the Constitution a Republican form of government, and
Benjamin
Franklin when asked,
said: you have been given a Republican form of government if you can keep
it,(paraphrase). By the laziness and greed of the American people
over the years our lawful government was stolen, but not without our help.
The Civil War was fought to free the slaves and reunite the Union, or so
we have been told by selected history, taught by and through the government.
The slaves just changed masters, as I have said before in other research
papers, and the white people enfranchised, incorporated, and sold themselves
into slavery.
Whites along with blacks
were made legal fictions so they could be owned and taxed by the king.
However, the only way this could be done is by destroying the Constitution,
but they had to do it in a way that no one would recognize its destruction,
or care thanks to the offered benefits. Now the Proof.
December 8, 1863 President Lincoln declared by proclamation, amnesty and
reconstruction for the southerners so they could be readmitted into the
Union. Footnote #7 This action along with what Lincoln was doing
with the money is why Lincoln had to be killed. The South could not
be allowed back into the Union
without their enfranchisement.
Compare the readmittance oath in President Lincoln's proclamation of 1863,
to the following oath requirement required by Congress, under the Reconstruction
Acts, Footnotes #3,4,5 and 6.
"An Act to provide for the more efficient government of the rebel States,
passed March second, eighteen hundred and sixty-seven, shall cause a registration
to be made of the male citizens of the United States, twenty-one years
of age and upwards, resident in each county or parish in the State
or States included in his district, which registration shall include only
those persons who are qualified to vote for delegates by the act aforesaid,
and who shall have taken and subscribed the following oath or affirmation:
"I, _____, do solemnly swear, (or affirm,) in the presence of Almighty
God, that I am a citizen of the State of _____; that I have resided in
said State for _____ months next preceding this day, and now reside in
the county of _____, or the parish of _____, in said State, (as the case
may be;) that I am twenty-one years old; that I have not been disfranchised
for participation in any rebellion or civil war against the
United States, nor for felony committed against the laws of any State or
of the United States; that I have never been a member of any State legislature,
nor held any executive or judicial office in any State and afterwards engaged
in insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or given
aid or comfort to the enemies thereof; that I have never taken an oath
as a member of Congress of the United States, 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, and afterwards engaged in insurrection or rebellion against
the United States or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof; that
I will faithfully support the Constitution and obey the laws of the United
States, and will, to the best of my ability, encourage others so to do,
so help me God;" which oath or affirmation may be administered by any registering
officer." Reconstruction Act of March 23, 1867,
supplement to Reconstruction
Act of March 2, 1867.
You will note that in the above oath Congress creates legal residence for
anyone taking the oath and that this is done by registering to vote, and
made a requirement in order to vote. The same legal disability still
takes place today when you register to vote. Today you still have
voting districts in every county in the America.
You will also notice that, the oath makes you declare that you were not
disenfranchised, by taking part in the Civil War. Which means that,
before the Civil War Americans were franchised citizens, incorporated.
I covered this in part 1; by the States adoption of the Constitution, those
that lived in the States became legal residents, incorporated/enfranchised,
instead of Sui Juris freemen. Which was granted to them by the Declaration
of Independence, and in North Carolina, for North Carolinians this was
reaffirmed by the 1776 North Carolina Constitution, see British Colony
part 2.
Also, you will see in the following oaths where the language came from,
for the creation of Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment, this language
was also used in the 14th Amendment oath you just read. Wherein it declares
that, elected officials, judges, legislators and police etc., cannot give
aid and comfort to the enemy. The enemy is anyone unincorporated,
because the king cannot legally tax you, without using the force of admiralty.
The enemy is also anyone that refuses to swear the oath to the de facto
government for the above reasons.
The following is the oath given to those that wanted to serve in the United
States government.
An act to prescribe an
oath of office. July 2, 1862
"Be it enacted, That hereafter every person elected or appointed to any
office of honor or profit under the Government of the United States either
in the civil, military, or naval departments of the public service, excepting
the President of the United States, shall, before entering upon the duties
of such office, and before being entitled to any of the salary or
other emoluments thereof, take and subscribe the following oath or affirmation:
"I, A B, do solemnly swear (or affirm), that I have never voluntarily borne
arms against the United States since I have been a citizen thereof; that
I have voluntarily given no aid, countenance, counsel, or encouragement
to persons engaged in armed hostility thereto; that I have never sought
nor accepted nor attempted to exercise the functions of any office whatever,
under any authority or pretended authority, in hostility to the United
States; that I have not yielded a voluntary support to any pretended government,
authority, power, or constitution within the United States, hostile or
inimical thereto; and I do further swear (or affirm) that, to the best
of my knowledge and ability, I will support and defend the Constitution
of the United States, against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I
will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this
obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion,
and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office
on which I am about to enter; so help me God;" which said oath, so
taken and signed, shall be preserved among the files of the Court, House
of Congress, or Department to which the said office may appertain. And
any person who shall falsely take the said oath shall be guilty of perjury,
and on conviction, in addition to the penalties now prescribed for that
offense, shall be deprived of his office, and rendered incapable
forever after, of holding any office or place under the United States."
When the war was over President Johnson declared the States readmitted
to the Union and hostilities to be over.
Furthermore; on April
2, 1866, President Andrew Johnson issued a "Proclamation" that:
"The insurrection which heretofore existed in the States of Georgia, South
Carolina, Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, Alabama, Louisiana, Arkansas,
Mississippi and Florida is at an end, and is henceforth to be so regarded."
Presidential Proclamation
No. 153,
General Records of the
United States,
G.S.A. National Archives
and Records Service.
On August 20, 1866 (14 Stat. 814); the President proclaimed that the insurrection
in the State of Texas had been completely ended and his "Proclamation"continued:
"The insurrection which heretofore existed in the State of Texas is at
an end, and is to be henceforth so regarded in that State, as in the other
States before named in which the said insurrection was proclaimed to be
at an end by the aforesaid proclamation of the second day of April, one
thousand, eight hundred and sixty-six.
"And I do further proclaim that the said insurrection is at an end, and
that peace, order, tranquility, and civil authority now exist, in and throughout
the whole of the united States of America."
Again the power behind the United States government would not stand for
this, so Congress passed the Reconstruction Acts,
Footnotes #3,4,5 and
6. President Johnson vetoed the Acts because they were unconstitutional.
Below are some excerpts from his veto message.
"It is plain that the authority here given to the military officer amounts
to absolute despotism. But to make it still more unendurable, the
bill provides that it may be delegated to as many subordinates as he chooses
to appoint, for it declares that he shall 'punish or cause to be punished'.
Such a power has not
been wielded by any
Monarch in England for more than five hundred years. In all that
time no people who speak the English language have borne such servitude.
It reduces the whole population of the ten States- all persons, of every
color, sex and condition, and every stranger within their limits- to the
most abject and
degrading slavery.
No master ever had a control so absolute over the slaves as this bill gives
to the military officers over both white and colored persons...."
"I come now to a question which is, if possible, still more important.
Have we the power to establish and carry into execution a measure like
this? I answer, 'Certainly not', if we derive our authority from
the Constitution and if we are bound by the limitations which is imposes."....
"...The Constitution also forbids the arrest of the citizen without judicial
warrant, founded on probable cause. This bill authorizes an arrest
without warrant, at pleasure of a military commander. The Constitution
declares that 'no person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise
infamous crime unless on presentment of a grand jury'. This
bill holds ever person not a soldier answerable for all crimes and all
charges without any presentment. The Constitution declares that 'no
person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process
of law'. This bill sets aside all process of law, and makes the citizen
answerable in his person and property to the will of one man, and as to
his life to the will of two. Finally, the Constitution declares that
'the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended unless
when, in case of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it';
whereas this bill declares martial law (which of itself suspends this great
writ) in time of peace, and authorizes the military to make the arrest,
and gives to the prisoner only one privilege, and that is trial 'without
unnecessary delay'. He has no hope of release from custody, except
the hope, such as it is, of release by acquittal before a military commission."
"The United States are bound to guarantee to each State a republican form
of government. Can it be pretended that this obligation is not palpably
broken if we carry out a measure like this, which wipes away every vestige
of republican government in ten States and puts the life, property, and
honor of all people
in each of them under
domination of a single person clothed with unlimited authority?"
"....,here is a bill of attainder against 9,000,000 people at once.
It is based upon an accusation so vague as to be scarcely intelligible
and found to be true upon no credible evidence. Not one of the 9,000,000
was heard in his own defense. The representatives of the doomed parties
were excluded from all
participation in the
trial. The conviction is to be followed by the most ignominious punishment
ever inflicted on large messes of men. It disfranchises them by hundreds
of thousands and degrades them all, even those who are admitted to be guiltless,
from the rank of freeman to the condition of slaves."
Veto Message of President
Johnson, March 2, 1867, Footnote #8
President Johnson did not realize the king ruled and that in 1845 Congress
declared admiralty law to have come on land, nor did he realize the relevance
of the Insular Cases. I cover these in "A Country Defeated In Victory"
part 1 and in Footnote 11. Once the judiciary decided to look the
other way, the De jure
Constitution's days
were numbered.
"As a result of these decisions, enforcement of the Reconstruction Act
against the Southern States, helpless to resist military rule without aid
of the judiciary, went forward unhampered. Puppet governments were
founded in these various States under military auspices. Through
these means the adoption of new state constitutions, conforming to the
requirements of Congress, was accomplished. Likewise, one by one,
these puppet state governments ratified the Fourteenth Amendment, which
their more independent predecessors had rejected. Finally, in July
1868, the ratifications of this amendment by the puppet governments of
seven of the ten Southern States, including Louisiana, gave more than the
required ratification by three- fourths of the States, and resulted in
a Joint Resolution adopted by Congress and a Proclamation by the Secretary
of State, both declaring the Amendment ratified and in force." Tulane Law
Review, The Dubious Origin Of The Fourteenth Amendment. page 36
To regress just a moment, after the war, after the States rejoined the
Union, the representatives of the South took their seats in Congress.
Later the Thirteenth Amendment was passed in Congress by the Northern States
and the Southern States. By the 1787 Constitution they were considered
equal contracting partners of the Union. The powers controlling the
government had to replace their republican form of government that had
existed in the Southern States since they adopted the 1787 Constitution.
"Despite the fact that the southern States had been functioning peacefully
for two years and had been counted to secure ratification of the
Thirteenth Amendment , Congress passed the Reconstruction Act, which provided
for the military occupation of 10 of the 11 southern States. It excluded
Tennessee from military occupation and one must suspect it was because
Tennessee had ratified the Fourteenth Amendment on July 7, 1866.
The Act further disfranchised practically all white voters and provided
that no Senator or Congressman from the occupied States could be seated
in Congress until a new Constitution was adopted by each State which would
be approved by Congress. The Act further provided that each of the 10 States
was required
to ratify the proposed
Fourteenth Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment must become a part
of the Constitution of the United States before the military occupancy
would cease and the States be allowed to have seats in Congress." Dyett
v. Turner 439 p2d 266 @ 269, 20 U2d 403
The way they chose to do it was pass the Fourteenth Amendment. However,
the Northern States that put the amendment up in Congress figured the Southern
States would ratify. Wrong, the amendment fell short of passing the
House and the Senate. The action taken next by the Northern States
will go down in history as the most unlawful act ever taken by any government
in the world. Since the amendment would not pass lawfully, the Northern
States decided to rip the 1787 Constitution up and take over the government.
How did they do this? They told the Southern States that refused
to vote for the amendment they no longer were members of Congress, denying
lawful States suffrage in the Union. In order to get the amendment
through Congress the Northern Senators also removed a seated Senator from
New Jersey to give them two-thirds in the Senate, and counted 30 abstention
votes in the House as yes votes to pass the Fourteenth Amendment in the
House. See Footnote #12
Observing how 'a renegade group of men from the Northern States', MY NOTE
in quotes, actual text in brackets (Congress) had taken the Constitution
into its own hands and was proceeding in willful disregard of the Constitution,
on the 15th of January, 1868- Ohio, and then on March 24, 1868- New Jersey,
voted to withdraw their prior ratifications and to reject.
The following, is an excerpt from Joint Resolution No.1 of the State of
New Jersey of March 24, 1868, when they rescinded their prior ratification
and rejected:
"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 form eleven States of the Union, upon the pretence
that there were no such States in the Union; but, finding that two-thirds
of the remainder of 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 power, without the right and in palpable violation
of the Constitution, ejected a member of their own body, representing
this State, and thus practically denied to New Jersey its equal suffrage
in the Senate and thereby nominally secured the vote of two-thirds of the
said Houses."
"The object of dismembering the highest representative assembly in the
Nation, and humiliating a State of the Union, faithful at all times to
all of its obligations, and the object of said amendment were one- to place
new and unheard of powers in the hands of a faction, that it might absorb
to itself all executive, judicial and legislative power, necessary to secure
to itself immunity for the unconstitutional acts it had already committed,
and those it has since inflicted on a too patient people."
"The subsequent usurpation of these once national assemblies, in passing
pretended laws for the establishment, in ten States, of martial law, which
is nothing but the will of the military commander, and therefore inconsistent
with the very nature of all law, for the purpose reducing to slavery men
of their own race to those States, or compelling them, contrary to their
own convictions, to exercise the elective franchise in obedience to dictation
of a fraction in those assemblies; the attempt to commit to one man arbitrary
and uncontrolled power,
which they have found
necessary to exercise to force the people of those States into compliance
with their will; the authority given to the Secretary of War to use the
name of the President, to countermand its President's order, and to certify
military orders to be by the direction of the President' when they are
notoriously known to
be contrary to the President's direction, thus keeping up the forms of
the Constitution to which the people are accustomed, but practically deposing
the President from his office of Commander-in-Chief, and suppressing one
of the great departments of the Government, that of the executive; the
attempt
to withdraw from the
supreme judicial tribunal of the Nation the jurisdiction to examine and
decide upon the conformity of their pretended laws to the Constitution,
which was the Chief function of that August tribunal, as organized by the
fathers of the republic: all are but amplified explanations of the power
they hope to acquire by the adoption of the said amendment."
"To conceal from the people the immense alteration of the fundamental law
they intended to accomplish by the said amendment, they gilded the same
with propositions of justice..."
"It imposes new prohibitions upon the power of the State to pass laws,
and interdicts the execution of such part of the common law as the national
judiciary may esteem inconsistent with the vague provisions of the said
amendment; made vague for the purpose of facilitating encroachment upon
the lives, liberties
and property of the
people."
"It enlarges the judicial power of the United States so as to bring every
law passed by the State, and every principle of the common law relating
to life, liberty, or property, within the jurisdiction of the Federal tribunals,
and charges those tribunals with duties, to the due performance of which
they, from
their nature and organization,
and their distance from the people, are unequal."
"It makes a new apportionment of representatives in the National courts,
for no other reason than thereby to secure to a faction a sufficient number
of votes of a servile and ignorant race to outweigh the intelligent voices
of their own."
"This Legislature, feeling conscious of the support of the largest majority
of the people that has ever been given expression to the public will, declare
that the said proposed amendment being designed to confer, or to compel
the States to confer, the sovereign right of elective franchise upon
a race which has never given the slightest evidence, at any time, or in
any quarter of the globe, of its capacity of self-government, and erect
an impracticable standard of suffrage, which will render the right valueless
to any portion of the people was intended to overthrow the system
of self-government under which the people of the United States have for
eighty years enjoyed their liberties, and is unfit, from its origin, its
object and its matter, to be incorporated with the fundamental law of a
free people." (The 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States
and the threat that it poses to our democratic government, Pinckney
G. McElwee, South Carolina Law Quarterly 1959)
Did the political outrage of all history stop there? No! In
order to ratify the amendment in the States, Congress declared war on the
Southern States by passing the Reconstruction Acts. Declaring the
Southern States had unlawful State governments. They placed the States
under martial law, creating military districts which still exist today.
Is not the Fourteenth Amendment still in existence today? Nothing
has changed. They replaced the lawful State governments with puppet
governments, so the Fourteenth Amendment would be ratified by the required
3/4 of the States and would not readmit any State until ratification of
the amendment was complete.
The illusion is since you vote for your officials, "we can't be under military
occupation". The privilege to vote would end if your State tried
to remove the Fourteenth Amendment.
Back to President Johnson's veto, the unlawful Congress then over road
his veto. Now picture this, you have a lawful President who vetoed
the unconstitutional Reconstruction Acts, passed by a de facto Congress.
Then the unlawful Congress overrides his veto since they have a Republican
majority in the
Congress after denying
the representation to the Democratic Southern States. This Congress
under the 1787 Constitution had no lawful authority to conduct business
under the 1787 Charter much less destroy the office of the President.
What do you call this? It was a political take over, a coup d'etat.
The Fourteenth Amendment was proposed by Congress to the States for adoption,
through the enactment by Congress of Public Resolution No. 48, adopted
by the Senate on June 8, 1866 and by the House of Representatives on June
13, 1866. That Congress deliberately submitted this amendment proposal
to the then existing legislatures of the several States is shown by the
initial paragraph of the resolution." Tulane Law Review, The Dubious Origin
Of The Fourteenth Amendment. page 28
1. Texas rejected
the 14th Amendment on October 27, 1866
(House Journal 1866, pp. 578-584 - Senate Journal 1866, p.
471.).
2. Georgia rejected
the 14th Amendment on November 9, 1866
(House Journal 1866, p 68 - Senate Journal 1866, p. 8.).
3. Florida rejected
the 14th Amendment on December 6, 1866
(House Journal 1866, p 76 - Senate Journal 1866, p. 8.).
4. Alabama rejected
the 14th Amendment on December 7, 1866
(House Journal 1866. p. 210-213 - Senate Journal 1866, p.
183.).
5. North Carolina
rejected the 14th Amendment on December 14,
1866 (House Journal 1866 - 1867. p. 183 - Senate Journal
1866-67, p. 138.).
6. Arkansas rejected
the 14th Amendment on December 17, 1866
(House Journal 1866, pp. 288-291 - Senate Journal 1866, p.
262.).
7. South Carolina
rejected the 14th Amendment on December 20,
1866 (House Journal 1866, p. 284 - Senate Journal 1866, p.
230.).
8. Kentucky rejected
the 14th Amendment on January 8, 1867
(House Journal 1867, p. 60 - Senate Journal 1867, p. 62.).
9. Virginia rejected
the 14th Amendment on January 9, 1867
(House Journal 1866-67, p. 108 - Senate Journal 1866-67, p.
101.).
10. Louisiana rejected
the 14th Amendment on February 9, 1867
("Joint Resolution" as recorded on page 9 of the "Acts of
the General Assembly," Second Session, January 28, 1867)
(McPherson, "Reconstruction," p. 194; "Annual Encyclopedia,"
p. 452.).
11. Delaware rejected
the 14th Amendment on February 7, 1867
(House Journal 1867, p. 223 - Senate Journal 1867, p. 808.).
12. Maryland rejected
the 14th Amendment on March 23, 1867
(House Journal 1867, p. 1141 - Senate Journal 1867, p.
808.).
13. Mississippi
rejected the 14th Amendment on January 31, 1867
(McPherson, "Reconstruction," p. 194.).
14. Ohio rejected
the 14th Amendment on January 15, 1868
(House Journal 1868, pp. 44-50 - Senate Journal 1868, pp.
33-38.).
15. New Jersey
rejected the 14th Amendment on March 24, 1868
("Minutes of the Assembly" 1868, p. 743 - Senate Journal
1868, p. 356.).
16. California
rejected the 14th Amendment on March 3rd, 1868
("Journal of the Assembly" 1867-8, p. 601).
17. Oregon rejected
the 14th Amendment by the Senate on October
6, 1868 and by the House on October 15, 1868 proclaiming the
Legislature that ratified the Amendment to have been a
"defacto" Legislature (U.S. House of Representatives, 40th
Congress, 3rd session, Mis. Doc. No 12).
Did the military occupation ever come to an end? No! Did the
military presence leave the streets? Yes. Technically do you
have to have a military presence visible in the streets, for military occupation
and martial law to exist? No! Can the military/Commander-in-Chief/Congress,
transfer this power to the
civil authorities?
Yes. Read the following cases, and Lincoln's General order 100, Footnote
#9
"But there is another description of government, called also by publicists
a government de facto, but which might, perhaps, be more aptly denominated
a government of paramount force. Its distinguishing characteristics are
(1) that its existence is maintained by active military power within the
territories, and against the rightful authority of an established and lawful
government; and (2) that while it exists it must necessarily be [229 U.S.
416, 429] obeyed in civil matters by private citizens who, by acts of obedience
rendered in submission to such force, do not become responsible, as wrongdoers,
for those acts, though not warranted by the laws of the rightful
government. Actual governments of this sort are established over districts
differing greatly in extent and conditions. They are usually administered
directly by military authority, but they may be administered, also, by
civil authority, supported more or less directly by military force."
Thornington v. Smith, 8 Wall. 1, 9, 19 L. ed. 361, 363. Macleod v.
U.S, 229 U.S. 416 1913
"While it is held to be the right of a conqueror to levy contributions
upon the enemy in their seaports, towns, or provinces which may be in his
military possession by conquest, and to apply the proceeds to defray the
expenses of the war, this right is to be exercised within such limitations
that it may not savor of confiscation. As the result of military occupation,
the taxes and duties payable by the inhabitants to the former government
become payable to the military occupant, unless he sees fit to substitute
for them other rates or modes of contributions to the expenses of
the government. The moneys so collected are to be used for the purpose
of paying the expenses of government under the military occupation, such
as the salaries of the judges and the police, and for the payment of the
expenses of the army." Macleod v. U.S, 229 U.S. 416 1913
To also prove that military occupation still exists, ask yourself this.
Is the Fourteenth Amendment, which was ratified under duress, military
occupation; and written and passed by a de facto Congress still in existence?
Yes! If a State would today remove the Fourteenth Amendment and the
statutory laws this amendment created from their State laws, do you think
the federal government would send in the military again? Of course
it would. So did the military occupation end? I hope by now
you know the answer to that.
Have you never wondered why the government sends your tax dollars all over
the world via the IMF and the World Bank etc. etc., with Americans paying
the bill, without ever putting this up for a vote? Read the following
quote.
"In New Orleans v. New York Mail S. S. Co. 20 Wall. 387, 393, 22 L. ed.
354, it was said, with respect to the powers of the military government
over the city of New Orleans after its conquest, that it had 'the same
power and rights in territory held by conquest as if the territory had
belonged to a foreign country and had been subjugated in a foreign war.
In such cases the conquering power has the right to displace the pre-existing
authority, and to assume to such extent as it may deem proper the exercise
by itself of all the powers and functions of government. It may appoint
all the necessary officers and clothe them with
designated powers, larger
or smaller, according to its pleasure. It may prescribe the revenues to
be paid, and apply them to its own use or otherwise. It may do anything
necessary to strengthen itself and weaken the enemy. There is no limit
to the powers that may be exerted in such cases, save those which are found
in the
laws and usages of war."
Dooley v. U.S., 182 U.S. 222 1901
To drive home the relevance of British Colony part 1&2 and what I just
said above about taxes, read and understand the below quotes from the Declaration
of Rights, September 5, 1774. Maybe it will sink in, we are taxed by Britain
and we have not only asked for it but, demanded the benefits supplied by
the king,
past and present.
GO FIGURE????
"Resolved, 4. That the
foundation of English liberty, and of all free government, is a right in
the people to participate in their legislative council: and as the English
colonists are not represented, and from their local and other circumstances,
can not properly be represented in the British Parliament, they are entitled
to a free and exclusive power of legislation in their several provincial
legislatures, where their right of representation can alone be preserved,
in all cases of taxation and internal polity, subject only to the negative
of their sovereign, in such manner as has been heretofore used and
accustomed. But, from the necessity of the case, and a regard to the mutual
interest of both countries, WE CHEERFULLY CONSENT TO THE OPERATION OF SUCH
ACTS OF THE BRITISH PARLIAMENT, as are BONA FIDE, restrained to the regulation
of our external commerce, for the PURPOSE OF SECURING THE COMMERCIAL ADVANTAGES
OF THE WHOLE EMPIRE TO THE MOTHER COUNTRY, and the COMMERCIAL BENEFITS
OF ITS RESPECTIVE MEMBERS; excluding every idea of taxation, internal or
ETERNAL, for raising a revenue on the SUBJECTS IN AMERICA, without
their consent." Declaration of Rights, from September 5, 1774 (The forefathers
wanted the commercial benefitswithout paying the taxes that go hand in
hand, it does not work that way Patriots.)
"Resolved, 7. That these,
His Majesty's colonies, are likewise entitled to all the IMMUNITIES AND
PRIVILEGES GRANTED and confirmed to them by ROYAL CHARTERS, or secured
by their several codes of provincial laws." Declaration of Rights, from
September 5, 1774
As further proof, are not all States divided into military Districts?
At first glance you may not think so. However, look at your District
Courts, in your State. They are the enforcement arm of the admiralty
law/kings law and legislation passed on a daily basis. As I said
before the voting Districts are also left over from the Reconstruction
Acts. In every court room a military flag is flown, a war flag not
the Title 4, flag of peace. Are you not required to obtain a license
from the de facto government for every aspect of commerce, and the use
of their military script/fiat money? Americans are taxed and controlled
in the following ways, to name a few:
1. Social Security number
- license to work.
2. Drivers license -
permission to conduct commerce and travel on
the military
roads.
3. Occupational license
- permission to perform a God given
right.
4. State and local privilege
license - license to work in the
State,
county or city.
5. Marriage license
- permission for a right granted by God
Almighty.
6. Hunting and Fishing
license - government taxing property of
God Almighty,
etc.etc.etc.
Every license or permit is a use tax and is financial slavery, you are
controlled in every aspect of your life. All licenses came about
after the Fourteenth Amendment and the military occupation, which we are
now under. The reason all this has taken place in America is, to
colonize the world for Britain. The United States has been
the enforcement arm/cannon fodder for Britain since the Civil War.
"The decisions wherein grounds were found for avoiding a ruling on the
constitutionality of the Reconstruction Act leave the impression that our
highest tribunal failed in these cases to measure up to the standard of
the judiciary in a constitutional democracy. If the Reconstruction
Act was unconstitutional, the people oppressed by it were entitled to protection
by the judiciary against such unconstitutional oppression." Tulane Law
Review, The Dubious Origin Of The Fourteenth Amendment. page 34
"The adversary or the skeptic might assert that, after a lapse of more
than eighty years, it is too late to question the constitutionality or
validity of the coerced ratifications of the Fourteenth Amendment even
on substantial and serious grounds. The ready answer is that there
is no statute of limitations that will cure a gross violation of the amendment
procedure laid down by Article V of the Constitution." Tulane Law Review,
The Dubious Origin Of The Fourteenth Amendment. page 43
If you want to read more about the military occupation and the War Powers
Act, read Footnote #11. This issue concerning the Constitution has
to be understood by the Patriots, before you can help others see the illusion.
We Patriots need to be able to tell others how we arrived in this condition.
But, this will never happen as long as we defend a dead treaty, and expect
a lawful remedy from a de facto government.
Is it any wonder why Americans look at us like were nuts. We defy
a de facto government and take its benefits. We curse its judges
and praise a de facto Constitution that, denies the judges the ability
to give remedy to the enemy. We praise the legal document that gave
Congress the power to declare us as
enemies and curse the
Congress for their action. Wake up Patriots! How do you expect
Americans to listen to the truth, when we are so easily made to look like
fools by the government propaganda machine, and we make it easy for them.
We tell the American people the sky is falling, but never give them a remedy,
other than keeping the same damn document that enslaved us. We do
not tell the American people that there was life before the Civil War Occupation
and the Fourteenth Amendment unlawful Constitution, so fear of the unknown
will keep them from wanting to learn. The only remedy I see,
except for God Almighty's Judgment, is to expose the fraud. See Footnote
13.
Until you accept the truth about the Constitution you will not be able
to understand the information in British Colony part 1&2. I will end
this research paper in this way. Someone asked me, "are you not afraid
to be killed by the government"? I told them what Shadrach, Meshach,
and Abendnego said:
"If it be so, our God
whom we serve is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace, and
he will deliver us out of thine hand, O king, But if not, be it known unto
thee, O king, that we will not serve thy gods, nor worship the golden image
which thou hast set up." Daniel 3:17-18
Mark Twain: "You see, my kind of loyalty was loyalty to one's country,
not to institutions or its officeholders. The country is the real
thing; it is the thing to watch over and care for and be loyal to; institutions
extraneous, they are its mere clothing, and clothing can wear out, become
ragged, cease to be comfortable, cease to protect the body from winter,
disease, and death. To be loyal to rags, to shout for rags, to worship
rags, to die for rags--that is a loyalty of unreason; it is pure animal;
it belongs to monarchy; was invented by monarchy; let monarchy keep it.
I was from Connecticut, whose constitution declared "That all political
power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on
their authority and instituted for their benefit, and that they have at
all times an undeniable and indefensible right to alter their form of government
in such a manner as they think expedient." Under that gospel, the
citizen who thinks that the Commonwealth's political clothes are worn out
and yet holds his peace and does not agitate for a new suit, is disloyal;
he is a traitor. That he may be the only one who thinks he sees this
decay does not excuse him; it is his duty to agitate, anyway, and it is
the duty of others to vote him down if they do not see the matter as he
does."
FOOTNOTES
Footnote #1
The North Carolina Legislature
protested [by "Resolution" of
December 6, 1866] as
follows:
"The Federal Constitution declare, in substance, that Congress shall consist
of a House of Representatives, composed of members apportioned among the
respective States in the ratio of their population, and of a Senate, composed
of two members from each State. And IN THE ARTICLE WHICH CONCERNS AMENDMENTS,
IT IS EXPRESSLY PROVIDED THAT `NO STATE, WITHOUT ITS CONSENT, SHALL
BE DEPRIVED OF ITS EQUAL SUFFRAGE IN THE SENATE.' THE CONTEMPLATED AMENDMENT
WAS NOT PROPOSED TO THE STATES BY A CONGRESS THUS CONSTITUTED. At the time
of its adoption, the eleven seceding States were deprived of representation
both in the Senate and House, although they all, except the State of Texas,
had Senators and Representatives duly elected and claiming their privileges
under the Constitution. In consequence of this, these States had no voice
on the important question of proposing the Amendment. HAD THEY BEEN ALLOWED
TO GIVE THEIR VOTES, THE PROPOSITION WOULD
DOUBTLESS HAVE FAILED
TO COMMAND THE REQUIRED TWO-THIRDS MAJORITY...."
"If the votes of these States are necessary to a valid ratification of
the Amendment, they were equally necessary on the question of proposing
it to the States; for it would be difficult, in the opinion of the Committee,
to show by what process in logic, men of intelligence would arrive at a
different conclusion." North Carolina Senate Journal, 1866-67, pp. 92 and
93.
"By spurious, non-representative governments; seven of the southern States,
(which had theretofore rejected the proposed Amendment under the duress
of military occupation and of being denied representation in Congress),
did attempt to ratify the proposed Fourteenth Amendment. The Secretary
of ;State, (of July 20, 1868), issued his proclamation wherein he stated
that it was his duty under the law to cause Amendments to be published
and certified as a part of the Constitution when he received official notice
that they had been adopted pursuant to the Constitution. Thereafter his
certificate contained the following language:"
"And whereas neither the Act just quoted from, nor any other
law, expressly or by
conclusive implication., authorizes the
Secretary of State to
determine and decide doubtful questions as
to the authenticity
of the organization of State legislatures, or
as to the power of any
State legislature to recall a previous
act or resolution of
ratification of any amendment proposed to
the Constitution;"
"And whereas it appears from official documents on file in
this Department that
the amendment to the Constitution of the
United States, proposed
as aforesaid, has been ratified by the
legislatures of the
States of [naming 23, including New Jersey,
Ohio, and Oregon];"
"And whereas it further appears from documents on file in
this Department that
the amendment to the Constitution of the
United States, proposed
as aforesaid, has also been ratified by
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,
and Alabama;"
"And whereas it further appears from official documents on
file in this Department
that the legislatures of two of the
States first above enumerated,
to wit, Ohio and New Jersey, have
since passed resolutions
respectively withdrawing the consent of
each of said States
to the aforesaid amendment; and whereas it is
deemed a matter of doubt
and uncertainty whether such resolutions
are not irregular, invalid,
and therefore ineffectual for
withdrawing the consent
of the said two States, or of either of
them, to the aforesaid
amendment;"
"And whereas the whole number of States in the United States
is thirty-seven, to
wit: [naming them];"
"And whereas the twenty-three States first hereinbefore
named, whose legislatures
have ratified the said proposed
amendment, and the six
States next there after named, as having
ratified the said proposed
amendment by newly constituted and
established legislative
bodies, together constitute three fourths
of the whole number
of States in the United States;"
"Now, therefore, be it known that I, WILLIAM H. SEWARD,
Secretary of State of
the United States, by virtue and in
pursuant of the second
section of the act of Congress, approved
the twentieth of April,
eighteen hundred and eighteen,
hereinbefore cited,
do hereby certify that if the resolutions of
the legislatures of
Ohio and New Jersey ratifying the aforesaid
amendment are to be
deemed as remaining of full force and effect,
notwithstanding the
subsequent resolutions of the legislatures of
those States, which
purport to withdraw the consent of said
States from such
ratification, then the aforesaid amendment had
been ratified in the
manner hereinbefore mentioned, and so has
become valid, to all
intents and purposes, as a part of the
Constitution of the
United States." *** (15 Stat. 707 (1868))"
Dyett v. Turner 439
p2d 266 @ 269, 20 U2d 403
"Congress was not satisfied with the proclamation as issued
and on the next day
passed a Concurrent Resolution wherein it was
resolved:"
"That said Fourteenth Article is hereby declared to be a
part of the Constitution
of the United States, and it shall be
duly promulgated as
such by the Secretary of State."
"Resolution set forth in proclamation of Secretary of State,
(15 Stat. 709 [1868])."
See also U.S.C.G., Amends.
1 to 5, Constitution, p. 11
"Thereupon; William H. Seaward, the Secretary of State
(after setting forth
the Concurrent Resolution of both Houses of
Congress) then certified
that the Amendment:"
"Has become valid to all intents and purposes as a part of
the Constitution of
the United States." (15 Stat. 708 [1868])"
Dyett v. Turner 439
p2d 266 @ 269, 20 U2d 403
"The Constitution of the United States is silent as to who
should decide whether
a proposed Amendment has or has not been
passed according to
formal provisions of Article V of the
Constitution.
The Supreme Court of the United States is the
ultimate authority on
the meaning of the Constitution and has
never hesitated in a
proper case to declare an Act of Congress
unconstitutional
except when the Act purported to amend the
Constitution." Dyett
v. Turner 439 p2d 266 @ 269, 20 U2d 403
"In the case of Laser v. Garnet 258 U.S. 130, 42 SECT. 217,
66 LED. 505, the question
was before the Supreme Court as to
whether or not the Nineteenth
Amendment had been ratified
pursuant to the Constitution.
In the last paragraph of the
decision the Supreme
Court said:"
"As the legislatures of Tennessee and of West Virginia had
power to adopt the resolutions
of ratification, official notice
to the Secretary, duly
authenticated, that they had done so, was
conclusive upon him,
and, being certified to by his proclamation,
is conclusive upon the
courts." Dyett v. Turner 439 p2d 266 @
269, 20 U2d 403
"The duty of the Secretary of State was ministerial, to wit,
to count and determine
when three fourths of the States had
ratified the proposed
Amendment. He could not determine that a
State, once having rejected
a proposed Amendment, could
thereafter approve it;
nor could he determine that a State, once
having ratified that
proposal, could thereafter reject it. The
Supreme Court, and not
Congress, should determine whether the
Amendment process be
final or would not be final, whether the
first vote was for ratification
or rejection." Dyett v. Turner
439 p2d 266 @ 269, 20
U2d 403
"In order to have 27 States ratify the Fourteenth Amendment,
it was necessary to
count those States which had first rejected
and then under the duress
of military occupation had ratified,
and then also to count
those States which initially ratified but
subsequently rejected
the proposal." Dyett v. Turner 439 p2d 266
@ 269, 20 U2d 403
"To leave such dishonest counting to a fractional part of
Congress is dangerous
in the extreme. What is to prevent any
political party having
control of both Houses of Congress from
refusing to seat the
opposition and then passing a Joint
Resolution to the effect
that the Constitution is amended and
that it is the duty
of the Administrator of the General Services
Administration
to proclaim the adoption?"
"Would the Supreme Court of the United States still say the
problem was political
and refuse to determine whether
constitutional standards
had been met?" Dyett v. Turner 439 p2d
266 @ 269, 20 U2d 403
Footnote #2
Tulane Law Review vol.
28 1953, The Dubious Origin Of The
Fourteenth Amendment,
by Walter J. Suthon, Jr.
"How remote was this Hamiltonian concept from the events of 1867 and 1888,
when a "rump" Congress arrogated to itself the power to force ratification
of a rejected amendment, coercing ratifications by several of the rejecting
States." page 26
"This submission was by a two-thirds vote of the quorum present in each
House of Congress, and in that sense it complied with Article V of the
Constitution. However, the submission was by a "rump" Congress.
Using the constitutional provision that "Each House shall be the judge
of the Elections, Returns and
Qualifications of its
own Members..." each House had excluded all persons appearing with credentials
as Senators or Representatives from the ten Southern States of Virginia,
North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi,
Louisiana, Arkansas and Texas. This exclusion, through the
exercise of an unreviewable constitutional prerogative, constituted a gross
violation of the essence of two other constitutional provisions, both intended
to protect the rights of the States to representation in Congress." page
28
"Had these ten Southern States not been summarily denied their constitutional
rights of representation in Congress, through the ruthless use of the power
of each House to pass on the election and qualifications of its members,
this amendment proposal would doubtless have died a-borning. It obviously
would
have been impossible
to secure a two-thirds vote for the submission of the proposed Fourteenth
Amendment, particularly in the Senate, if the excluded members had been
permitted to enter and to vote. Of course, that was one of the motives
and reasons for this policy of ruthless exclusion." page 28
"Assuming the validity of the submission of this amendment by a two-thirds
vote of this "rump" Congress, there is no gainsaying the obvious proposition
that whatever "contemplation" or "understanding" this "rump" Congress may
have had, as to the intent, or the scope, or the effect, or the consequences
of the amendment being submitted, was necessarily a "rump" contemplation
or understanding. The ten Southern States, whose Senators and Representatives
were all excluded from the deliberations of the "rump" Congress, could
have had no possible part in the development or formation of any "contemplation"
or "understanding" of what the consequences and effects of the proposed
amendment were to be." page 29
"This created a situation which made impossible the ratification of the
Amendment unless some of these rejections were reversed. With thirty-seven
States in all, ten rejections were sufficient to prevent the adoption of
the amendment proposal. The thirteen rejections, by the ten
Southern States and three border States, were more than sufficient to block
ratification even if all other States finally ratified." page 30
"This is the only action ever taken on the Fourteenth Amendment by a Louisiana
Legislature exercising free and unfettered and un-coerced judgment and
discretion as between ratification or rejection of the amendment proposal.
The subsequent purported ratification of this Amendment in Louisiana
was by a legislature of a puppet government, created by the radical majority
of Congress to do the bidding of its master, and compelled to ratify this
Amendment by the Federal Statute which had brought this puppet government
into existence for this
specific purpose."
page 30
"It is most interesting to read the proceedings of the Louisiana House
of Representatives on February 6, 1867, whereby that body adopted the Joint
Resolution ordaining the refusal of Louisiana to ratify the proposed Fourteenth
Amendment--the Joint Resolution which became Act 4 of 1867. This
Journal shows, by the roll call, that one hundred members voted out of
a total
House membership of
one hundred and ten--and that the unanimous vote was one hundred against
ratification and not in favor of it. This was the last opportunity
for a free and un-coerced expression of views on this amendment proposal
by duly elected representatives of the people of Louisiana." page 31
"The Act dealt with these Southern States, referred to as "rebel States"
in its various provisions. It opened with a recital that "no legal
State government" existed in these States. It placed these States
under military rule. Louisiana and Texas were grouped together as
the Fifth Military District, and placed under the domination of an army
officer appointed by the President. All civilian authorities were
placed under the dominant authority of the military government." page 31
"The most extreme and amazing feature of the Act was the requirement that
each excluded State must ratify the Fourteenth Amendment, in order to again
enjoy the status and rights of a State, including representation in Congress.
Section 3 of the Act sets fourth this compulsive coercion thus imposed
upon the Southern States." page 32
"Senator Doolittle of Wisconsin, a Northerner and a Conservative Republican.
During the floor debate on the bill, he said,
"My friend has said what has been said all around me, what is said every
day: the people of the South have rejected the constitutional amendment,
and therefore we will march upon them and force them to adopt it at the
point of the bayonet, and establish military power over them until they
do adopt it." page 32
"President Johnson vetoed the Reconstruction Act in an able message, stressing
its harsh injustices and its many aspects of obvious unconstitutionality.
He justifiably denounced it as "a bill of attainder against nine million
people at once." page 33
"Notwithstanding this able message, the Act was promptly passed over his
veto by the required two-thirds majority in each House. Military
rule took over in the ten Southern States to initiate the process of conditioning
a subjugated people to an ultimate acceptance of the Fourteenth Amendment."
page 33
"Whatever justification for other portions of the Reconstruction Act may
or may not be found in this constitutional provision, there could clearly
be no sort of a relationship between a guarantee to a State of "a republican
form of government" and an abrogation of the basic and constitutional
right of a State, in its legislative discretion, to make its own choice
between ratification or rejection of a constitutional amendment proposal
submitted to the state legislatures by the Congress of the United States.
To deny to a State the exercise of this free choice between ratification
and rejection, and to put the harshest sort of coercive pressure upon a
State to compel ratification, was clearly a gross infraction--not and effectuation--of
the constitutional guarantee of "a republican form of government." page
37
Madison said in Federalist No. 43:
"....the authority extends
no further than to a guaranty of a republican form government, which supposes
a preexisting government of the form which is to be guaranteed. As
long, therefore, as the existing republican forms are continued by the
States, they are guaranteed by the federal Constitution. Whenever
the States may choose to substitute other republican forms, they have a
right to do so, and to claim the federal guaranty for the latter.
The only restriction imposed on them is, that they shall not exchange republican
for anti-republican
Constitutions; a restriction
which, it is presumed, will hardly be considered as a grievance."
page 38
"The enactment of the legislature of the puppet government of Louisiana
which ratified the Fourteenth Amendment is embodied in Act 2 of 1868.
The legislative journals of that session reflect the presence and dominance
of the military, all as provided for and contemplated by the Reconstruction
Act." page 39
"The House Journal shows that on June 29, 1868, Colonel Batchelder opened
the session by calling the roll and reading an extract form the order of
General Grant. The Senate Journal for the same date shows the reading
of instructions from General Grant to the Commanding Officer of the Fifth
Military District
emphasizing the supremacy
of the power of the military over the provisional civilian government.
It was under these auspices that the coerced ratifications of the Fourteenth
Amendment in Louisiana was accomplished." page 40
"Also worth of note in this connection ins the holding in 1895 that the
levying of an income tax by the Federal Government, without apportioning
the tax among the States as a direct tax, violated the taxing-power provisions
of the Constitution of the United States--although, thirty years prior
to this judicial
vindication of what
the majority of the Court deemed to be fundamental and true Constitutional
provisions, the Federal Government had levied and collected income taxes
for several years on a large scale, and had financed a major war of vital
consequences to a very considerable extent out of revenues so obtained."
page 44
Footnote #3
Reconstruction Act of
March 2, 1867
RECONSTRUCTION ACT OF
THIRTY-NINTH CONGRESS
From Twenty Years of
Congress: From Lincoln to Garfield.
With a review of the
events which led to the political revolution
of 1860, by James G.
Blaine. Vol. II, pp. 681-682.
An Act to provide for
the more efficient government of the rebel states.
"Whereas no legal State governments or adequate protection for life or
property now exist in the rebel States of Virginia, Louisiana, Florida,
Texas, and Arkansas; and whereas it is necessary that peace and good order
should be enforced in said States until loyal and republican State governments
can be
legally established:
Therefore."
"Be it enacted, That said rebel States shall be divided into military
districts and made subject to the military authority of the United States,
as hereinafter prescribed, and for that purpose Virginia shall constitute
the first district; North Carolina and South Carolina the second district;
Georgia, Alabama, and Florida the third district; Mississippi and Arkansas
the fourth district; and Louisiana and Texas the fifth district."
Sec. 2. "That it shall
be the duty of the President to assign to the command of each of said districts
an officer of the army, not below the rank of brigadier-general, and to
detail a sufficient military force to enable such officer to perform his
duties and enforce his authority within the district to which he is
assigned."
Sec. 3. "That it shall
be the duty of each officer assigned as aforesaid to protect all persons
in their rights of person and property, to suppress insurrection, disorder,
and violence, and to punish, or cause to be punished, all disturbers of
the public peace and criminals, and to this end he may allow local civil
tribunals to take jurisdiction of and to try offenders, or, when in his
judgment it may be necessary for the trial of offenders, he shall have
power to organize military commissions or tribunals for that purpose; and
all interference under color of State authority with the exercise of military
authority under this act shall be null and void."
Sec. 4. "That all persons
put under military arrest by virtue of this act shall be tried without
unnecessary delay, and no cruel or unusual punishment shall be inflicted;
and no sentence of any military commission or tribunal hereby authorized,
affecting the life or liberty of any person, shall be executed until it
is approved by the officer in command of the district, and the laws and
regulations for the government of the army shall not be affected by this
act, except in so far as they conflict with its provisions:
"Provided, That no sentence of death under the provisions of this act shall
be carried into effect without the approval of the President."
Sec. 5."That when the
people of any one of said rebel States shall have formed a constitution
of government in conformity with the Constitution of the United States
in all respects, framed by a convention of delegates elected by the male
citizens of said State twenty-one years old and upward, of whatever race,
color, or previous condition, who have been resident in said State
for one year previous to the day of such election, except such as may be
disfranchised for participation in the rebellion, or for felony at common
law, and when such constitution shall provide that the elective franchise
shall be enjoyed by all such persons as have the qualifications herein
stated for electors of delegates, and when such constitution shall be ratified
by a majority of the persons voting on the question of ratification who
are qualified as electors for delegates, and when such constitution shall
have been submitted to Congress for examination and approval, and Congress
shall have approved the same, and when said State, by a vote of its legislature
elected under said constitution, shall have adopted the amendment to the
Constitution of the United States, proposed by the Thirty-Ninth Congress,
and known as a targe."
"After Ten Amend article fourteen, and when said article shall have become
a part of the Constitution of the United States, said State shall
be declared entitled to representation in Congress, and Senators and Representatives
shall be admitted therefrom on their taking the oaths prescribed by law,
and then and thereafter the preceding sections of this act shall be inoperative
in said State:
"Provided, That no person excluded from the privilege of holding office
by said proposed amendment to the Constitution of the United States shall
be eligible to election as a member of the convention to frame a constitution
for any of said rebel States, nor shall any such person vote for members
of such
convention."
Sec. 6."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; and in all elections to be entitled to
vote, and none others, who are entitled to vote under the provisions of
the fifth section of this act; and no person shall be eligible to any office
under any such provisional governments who would be disqualified
from holding office under the provisions of the third article of said constitutional
amendment."
Footnote #4
Reconstruction Act of
March 11, 1868
AMENDATORY RECONSTRUCTION
ACT OF MARCH 11, 1868
From Twenty Years of
Congress: From Lincoln to Garfield. With a review of the events which
led to the political revolution of 1860, by James G. Blaine. Vol. II, p.
687.
"An Act to amend the act passed March 23, 1867, entitled An Act supplementary
to 'An act to provide for the more efficient government of the rebel states,'
passed March 2, 1867, and to facilitate their restoration."
"Be it enacted, That hereafter any election authorized by
the act passed March
23, 1867, entitled "An Act supplementary to
'An act to provide for
the more efficient government of the rebel
states,' passed March
2, 1867, and to facilitate their
restoration," shall
be decided by a majority of the votes
actually cast; and at
the election in which the question of the
adoption or rejection
of any constitution is submitted, any
person duly registered
in the State may vote in the election
district where he offers
to vote when he has resided therein for
ten days next preceding
such election, upon presentation of his
certificate of registration,
his affidavit, or other satisfactory
evidence, under such
regulations as the district commanders may
prescribe."
Sec. 2. "That the constitutional
convention of any of the States
mentioned in the acts
to which this is amendatory may provide
that at the time of
voting upon the ratification of the
constitution, the registered
voters may vote also for members of
the House of Representatives
of the United States, and for all
elective officers provided
for by the said constitution; and the
same election officers,
who shall make the returns of the votes
cast on the ratification
or rejection of the constitution, shall
enumerate and certify
the votes cast for members of Congress."
Footnote #5
Reconstruction Act of
March 23, 1867
SUPPLEMENTARY RECONSTRUCTION
ACT OF FORTIETH CONGRESS.
From Twenty Years of
Congress: From Lincoln to Garfield.
With a review of the
events which led to the political revolution of 1860, by James G. Blaine.
Vol. II, pp. 682-685.
An Act supplementary
to an act entitled
An act to provide for the more efficient government of the
rebel states, passed
March second, eighteen hundred and
sixty-seven, and to
facilitate restoration.
"Be it enacted, That before the first day of September,
eighteen hundred and
sixty-seven, the commanding general in each
district defined by
an act entitled."
"An Act to provide for the more efficient government of the
rebel States, passed
March second, eighteen hundred and
sixty-seven, shall cause
a registration to be made of the male
citizens of the United
States, twenty-one years of age and
upwards, resident in
each county or parish in the State or States
included in his district,
which registration shall include only
those persons who are
qualified to vote for delegates by the act
aforesaid, and who shall
have taken and subscribed the following
oath or affirmation:
"I, _____, do solemnly swear, (or affirm,)
in the presence of Almighty
God, that I am a citizen of the State
of _____; that I have
resided in said State for _____ months next
preceding this day,
and now reside in the county of _____, or the
parish of _____, in
said State, (as the case may be;) that I am
twenty-one years old;
that I have not been disfranchised for
participation in any
rebellion or civil war against the United
States, nor for felony
committed against the laws of any State or
of the United States;
that I have never been a member of any
State legislature, nor
held any executive or judicial office in
any State and afterwards
engaged in insurrection or rebellion
against the United States,
or given aid or comfort to the enemies
thereof; that I have
never taken an oath as a member of Congress
of the United States,
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, and afterwards
engaged in insurrection or
rebellion against the
United States or given aid or comfort to
the enemies thereof;
that I will faithfully support the
Constitution and obey
the laws of the United States, and will, to
the best of my ability,
encourage others so to do, so help me
God;" which oath or
affirmation may be administered by any
registering officer."
Sec. 2. "That after the
completion of the registration hereby
provided for in any
State, at such time and places therein as the
commanding general shall
appoint and direct, of which at least
thirty days' public
notice shall be given, an election shall be
held of delegates to
a convention for the purpose of establishing
a constitution and civil
government for such state loyal to the
Union, said convention
in each State, except Virginia, to consist
of the same number of
members as the most numerous branch of the
State legislature of
such State in the year eighteen hundred and
sixty, to be apportioned
among the several districts, counties,
or parishes of such
State by the commanding general, giving to
each representation
in the ratio of voters registered as
aforesaid, as nearly
as may be. The convention in Virginia shall
consist of the same
number of members as represented the
territory now constituting
Virginia in the most numerous branch
of the legislature of
said State in the year eighteen hundred and
sixty, to be apportioned
as aforesaid."
Sec. 3. "That at said
election the registered voters of each
State shall vote for
or against a convention to form a
constitution therefore
under this act. Those voting in favor of
such a convention shall
have written or printed on the ballots by
which they vote for
delegates, as aforesaid, the words "For a
convention," and those
voting against such a convention shall
have written or printed
on such ballots the words "Against a
convention." The person
appointed to superintend said election,
and to make return of
the votes given thereat, as herein
provided, shall count
and make return of the votes given for and
against a convention;
and the commanding general to whom the same
shall have been returned
shall ascertain and declare the total
vote in each State for
and against a convention. If a majority of
the votes given on that
question shall be for a convention, then
such convention shall
be held as hereinafter provided; but if a
majority of said votes
shall be against a convention, then no
such convention shall
be held under this act:
"Provided, That such convention shall not be held unless a
majority of all such
registered voters shall have voted on the
question of holding
such convention."
Sec. 4. "That the commanding
general of each district shall
appoint as many boards
of registration as may be necessary,
consisting of three
loyal officers or persons, to make and
complete the registration,
superintend the election, and make
return to him of the
votes, lists of voters, and of the persons
elected as delegates
by a plurality of the votes cast at said
election; and upon receiving
said returns he shall open the same,
ascertain the persons
elected as delegates according to the
returns of the officers
who conducted said election, and make
proclamation thereof;
and if a majority of the votes given
on that question shall
be for a convention, the commanding
general, within sixty
days from the date of election, shall
notify the delegates
to assemble in convention, at a time and
place to be mentioned
in the notification, and said convention,
when organized, shall
proceed to frame a constitution and civil
government according
to the provisions of this act and the act to
which is it supplementary;
and when the same shall have been so
framed, said constitution
shall be submitted by the convention
for ratification to
the persons registered under the provisions
of this act at an election
to be conducted by the officers or
persons appointed or
to be appointed by the commanding general,
as hereinbefore provided,
and to be held after the expiration of
thirty days from the
date of notice thereof, to be given by said
convention; and the
returns thereof shall be made to the
commanding general of
the district."
Sec. 5. "That if, according
to said returns, the constitution
shall be ratified by
a majority of the votes of the registered
electors qualified as
herein specified, cast at said election,
(at least one half of
all the registered voters voting upon the
question of such ratification,)
the president of the convention
shall transmit a copy
of the same, duly certified, to the
President of the United
States, who shall forthwith transmit the
same to Congress, if
then in session, and if not in session,
then immediately upon
its next assembling; and if it shall,
moreover, appear to
Congress that the election was one at which
all the registered and
qualified electors in the State had an
opportunity to vote
freely and without restraint, fear, or the
influence of fraud,
and if the Congress shall be satisfied that
such constitution meets
the approval of a majority of all the
qualified electors in
the State, and if the said constitution
shall be declared by
Congress to be in conformity with the
provisions of the act
to which this is supplementary, and the
other provisions of
said act shall have been complied with, and
the said constitution
shall be approved by Congress, the State
shall be declared entitled
to representation, and Senators and
Representatives shall
be admitted therefrom as therein provided."
Sec. 6. "That all elections
in the States mentioned in the said
"Act to provide for
the more efficient government of the rebel
States," shall, during
the operation of said act, be by ballot;
and all officers making
the said registration of voters and
conducting said elections
shall, before entering upon the
discharge of their duties,
take and subscribe the oath prescribed
by the oath 1862 act
approved July second, eighteen hundred and
sixty-two, entitled
"An act to prescribe an oath of office:"
"Provided, That if any person shall knowingly and falsely
take and subscribe any
oath in this act prescribed, such person
so offending and being
thereof duly convicted, shall be subject
to the pains, penalties,
and disabilities which by law are
provided for the punishment
of the crime of wilful and corrupt
perjury."
Sec. 7. "That all expenses
incurred by the several commanding
generals, or by virtue
of any orders issued, or appointments
made, by them, under
or by virtue of this act, shall be paid out
of any moneys in the
treasury not otherwise appropriated."
Sec. 8. "That the convention
for each State shall prescribe the
fees, salary, and compensation
to be paid to all delegates and
other officers and agents
herein authorized or necessary to carry
into effect the purposes
of this act not herein otherwise
provided for, and shall
provide for the levy and collection of
such taxes on the property
in such State as may be necessary to
pay the same."
Sec. 9. "That the word
article, in the sixth section of the act
to which this is supplementary,
shall be construed to mean
section."
Footnote #6
Reconstruction Act of
July 19, 1867
SUPPLEMENTARY RECONSTRUCTION
ACT OF JULY 19, 1867.
From Twenty Years of
Congress: From Lincoln to Garfield.
With a review of the
events which led to the political revolution of 1860, by James G.
Blaine. Vol. II, pp. 685-687.
"An Act supplementary to an act entitled An Act to provide
for the more efficient
government of the rebel states, passed on
the second day of March,
1867, and the act supplementary
thereto, passed on the
23d day of March, 1867."
"Be it enacted, That it is hereby declared to have been the
true intent and meaning
of the act of the 2d day of March, 1867,
entitled "An act to
provide for the more efficient government of
the rebel States," and
of the act supplementary thereto, passed
on the 23d day of March,
1867, that the governments then existing
in the rebel States
of Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina,
Georgia, Mississippi,
Alabama, Louisiana, Florida, Texas, and
Arkansas, were not legal
State governments; and that thereafter
said governments, if
continued, were to be continued subject in
all respects to the
military commanders of the respective
districts, and to the
paramount authority of Congress."
Sec. 2."That the commander
of any district named in said act
shall have power, subject
to the disapproval of the General of
the army of the United
States, and to have effect till
disapproved, whenever
in the opinion of such commander the proper
administration of said
act shall require it, to suspend or remove
from office, or from
the performance of official duties and the
exercise of official
powers, any officer or person holding or
exercising, or professing
to hold or exercise, any civil or
military office or duty
in such district under any power,
election, appointment,
or authority derived from, or granted by,
or claimed under, any
so-called State or the government thereof,
or any municipal or
other division thereof; and upon such
suspension or removal
such commander, subject to the disapproval
of the General as aforesaid,
shall have power to provide from
time to time for the
performance of the said duties of such
officer or person so
suspended or removed, by the detail of some
competent officer or
soldier of the army, or by the appointment
of some other person
to perform the same, and to fill vacancies
occasioned by death,
resignation, or otherwise."
Sec. 3. "That the General
of the army of the United States shall
be invested with all
the powers of suspension, removal,
appointment, and detail
granted in the preceding section to
district commanders."
Sec. 4. "That the acts
of the officers of the army already done
in removing in said
districts persons exercising the functions of
civil officers, and
appointing others in their stead, are hereby
confirmed: Provided,
That any person heretofore or hereafter
appointed by any district
commander to exercise the functions of
any civil office, may
be removed either by the military officer
in command of the district,
or by the General of the army. And it
shall be the duty of
such commander to remove from office, as
aforesaid, all persons
who are disloyal to the Government of the
United States, or who
use their official influence in any manner
to hinder, delay, prevent,
or obstruct the due and proper
administration of this
act and the acts to which it is
supplementary."
Sec. 5."That the boards
of registration provided for in the act
entitled "An act supplementary
to an act entitled 'An act to
provide for the more
efficient government of the rebel States,'
passed March 2, 1867,
and to facilitate restoration," passed
March 23, 1867, shall
have power, and it shall be their duty,
before allowing the
registration of any person, to ascertain,
upon such facts or information
as they can obtain, whether such
person is entitled to
be registered under said act, and the oath
required by said act
shall not be conclusive on such question,
and no person shall
be registered unless such board shall decide
that he is entitled
thereto; and such board shall also have power
to examine, under oath,
(to be administered by any member of such
board,) any one touching
the qualification of any person claiming
registration; but in
every case of refusal by the board to
register an applicant,
and in every case of striking his name
from the list as hereinafter
provided, the board shall make a
note or memorandum,
which shall be returned with the registration
list to the commanding
general of the district, setting forth the
grounds of such refusal
or such striking from the list:
"Provided, That no person shall be disqualified as member of
any board of registration
by reason of race or color."
Sec. 6. "That the true
intent and meaning of the oath prescribed
in said supplementary
act is, (among other things,) that no
person who has been
a member of the Legislature of any State, or
who has held any executive
or judicial office in any State,
whether he has taken
an oath to support the Constitution of the
United States or not,
and whether he was holding such office at
the commencement of
the rebellion, or had held it before, and who
has afterwards engaged
in insurrection or rebellion against the
United States, or given
aid or comfort to the enemies thereof, is
entitled to be registered
or to vote; and the words "executive or
judicial office in any
State" in said oath mentioned shall be
construed to include
all civil offices created by law for the
administration of any
general law of a State, or for the
administration of justice."
sec. 7. "That the time
for completing the original registration
provided for in said
act may, in the discretion of the commander
of any district, be
extended to the 1st day of October, 1867; and
the boards of registration
shall have power, and it shall be
their duty, commencing
fourteen days prior to any election under
said act, and upon reasonable
public notice of the time and place
thereof, to revise,
for a period of five days, the registration
lists, and, upon being
satisfied that any person not entitled
thereto has been registered,
to strike the name of such person
from the list, and such
person shall not be allowed to vote. And
such board shall also,
during the same period, add to such
registry the names of
all persons who at that time possess the
qualifications required
by said act who have not been already
registered; and no person
shall, at any time, be entitled to be
registered or to vote,
by reason of any executive pardon or
amnesty, for any act
or thing which, without such pardon or
amnesty, would disqualify
him from registration or voting."
Sec. 8. "That section
four of said last-named act shall be
construed to authorize
the commanding general named therein,
whenever he shall deem
it needful, to remove any member of a
board of registration
and to appoint another in his stead, and to
fill any vacancy in
such board."
Sec. 9. "That all members
of said boards of registration, and all
persons hereafter elected
or appointed to office in said military
districts, under any
so-called State or municipal authority, or
by detail or appointment
of the district commanders, shall be
required to take and
to subscribe the oath of office prescribed
by law for officers
of the United States. I am not sure that
this is the oath intended
here."
Sec. 10. "That no district
commander or member of the board of
registration, or any
of the officers or appointees acting under
them, shall be bound
in his action by any opinion of any civil
officer of the United
States."
Sec. 11. "That all the
provisions of this act and of the acts to
which this is supplementary
shall be construed liberally, to the
end that all the intents
thereof may be fully and perfectly
carried out."
Footnote #7
Proclamation of Amnesty
and Reconstruction
BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A PROCLAMATION.
"Whereas, in and by the Constitution of the United States,
it is provided that
the President "shall have power to grant
reprieves and pardons
for offenses against the United States,
except in cases of impeachment;"
and
"Whereas a rebellion now exists whereby the loyal State
governments of several
States have for a long time been
subverted, and many
persons have committed and are now guilty of
treason against the
United States; and Whereas, with reference to
said rebellion and treason,
laws have been enacted by Congress
declaring forfeitures
and confiscation of property and liberation
of slaves, all upon
terms and conditions therein stated, and also
declaring that the President
was thereby authorized at any time
thereafter, by proclamation,
to extend to persons who may have
participated in the
existing rebellion, in any State or part
thereof, pardon and
amnesty, with such exceptions and at such
times and on such conditions
as he may deem expedient for the
public welfare;" and
"Whereas the congressional declaration for limited and
conditional pardon accords
with well-established judicial
exposition of the pardoning
power;" and
"Whereas, with reference to said rebellion, the President of
the United States has
issued several proclamations, with
provisions in regard
to the liberation of slaves; and
Whereas it is now desired
by some persons heretofore engaged in
said rebellion to resume
their allegiance to the United States,
and to reinaugurate
loyal State governments within and for their
respective States; therefore,"
"I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, do
proclaim, declare, and
make known to all persons who have,
directly or by implication,
participated in the existing
rebellion, except as
hereinafter excepted, that a full pardon is
hereby granted to them
and each of them, with restoration of all
rights of property,
except as to slaves, and in property cases
where rights of third
parties shall have intervened, and upon the
condition that every
such person shall take and subscribe an
oath, and thenceforward
keep and maintain said oath inviolate;
and which oath shall
be registered for permanent preservation,
and shall be of the
tenor and effect following, to wit:"
"I, --------, do solemnly
swear, in presence of Almighty God,
that I will henceforth
faithfully support, protect and defend the
Constitution of the
United States, and the union of the States
thereunder; and that
I will, in like manner, abide by and
faithfully support all
acts of Congress passed during the
existing rebellion with
reference to slaves, so long and so far
as not repealed, modified
or held void by Congress, or by
decision of the Supreme
Court; and that I will, in like manner,
abide by and faithfully
support all proclamations of the
President made during
the existing rebellion having reference to
slaves, so long and
so far as not modified or declared void by
decision of the Supreme
Court. So help me God."
"The persons excepted from the benefits of the foregoing
provisions are all who
are, or shall have been, civil or
diplomatic officers
or agents of the so-called confederate
government; all who
have left judicial stations under the United
States to aid the rebellion;
all who are, or shall have been,
military or naval officers
of said so-called confederate
government above the
rank of colonel in the army, or of
lieutenant in the navy;
all who left seats in the United States
Congress to aid the
rebellion; all who resigned commissions in
the army or navy of
the United States, and afterwards aided the
rebellion; and all who
have engaged in any way in treating
colored persons or white
persons, in charge of such, otherwise
than lawfully as prisoners
of war, and which persons may have
been found in the United
States service, as soldiers, seamen, or
in any other capacity."
"And I do further proclaim, declare, and make known, that
whenever, in any of
the States of Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana,
Mississippi, Tennessee,
Alabama, Georgia, Florida, South
Carolina, and North
Carolina, a number of persons, not less than
one-tenth in number
of the votes cast in such State at the
Presidential election
of the year of our Lord one thousand eight
hundred and sixty, each
having taken the oath aforesaid and not
having since violated
it, and being a qualified voter by the
election law of the
State existing immediately before the
so-called act of secession,
and excluding all others, shall
re-establish a State
government which shall be republican, and in
no wise contravening
said oath, such shall be recognized as the
true government of the
State, and the State shall receive
thereunder the benefits
of the constitutional provision which
declares that "The United
States shall guaranty to every State in
this union a republican
form of government, and shall protect
each of them against
invasion; and, on application of the
legislature, or the
executive, (when the legislature cannot be
convened,) against domestic
violence."
"And I do further proclaim, declare, and make known that any
provision which may
be adopted by such State government in
relation to the freed
people of such State, which shall recognize
and declare their permanent
freedom, provide for their education,
and which may yet be
consistent, as a temporary arrangement, with
their present condition
as a laboring, landless, and homeless
class, will not be objected
to by the national Executive. And it
is suggested as not
improper, that, in constructing a loyal State
government in any State,
the name of the State, the boundary,
the subdivisions, the
constitution, and the general code of laws,
as before the rebellion,
be maintained, subject only to the
modifications made necessary
by the conditions hereinbefore
stated, and such others,
if any, not contravening said
conditions, and which
may be deemed expedient by those framing
the new State government."
"To avoid misunderstanding, it may be proper to say that
this proclamation, so
far as it relates to State governments, has
no reference to States
wherein loyal State governments have all
the while been maintained.
And for the same reason, it may be
proper to further say
that whether members sent to Congress from
any State shall be admitted
to seats, constitutionally rests
exclusively with the
respective Houses, and not to any extent
with the Executive.
And still further, that this proclamation is
intended to present
the people of the States wherein the national
authority has been suspended,
and loyal State governments have
been subverted, a mode
in and by which the national authority and
loyal State governments
may be re-established within said States,
or in any of them; and,
while the mode presented is the best the
Executive can suggest
with his present impressions, it must not
be understood that no
other possible mode would be
acceptable."
"Given under my hand at the city, of Washington, the 8th.
day of December, A.D.
one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three,
and of the independence
of the United States of America the
eighty-eighth."
ABRAHAM LINCOLN
By the President:
WILLIAM H. SEWARD, Secretary
of State
Footnote #8
Veto message by President
Johnson, March 2, 1867
"I have examined the bill to provide for the more efficient government
of the Rebel States' with care and anxiety which its transcendent importance
is calculated to awaken. I am unable to give it my assent for reasons
so grave that I hope a statement of them may have some influence on the
minds of the patriotic and enlightened men with whom the decision must
ultimately rest."
"The bill places all the people of the ten states therein named under the
absolute domination of military rules; and the preamble undertakes to give
the reason upon which the measure is based and the ground upon which it
is justified. It declares that there exists in those States no legal
governments and no
adequate protection
for life or property, and asserts the necessity of enforcing peace and
good order within their limits. This is not true as a matter of fact."
"It is not denied that the States in question have each of them an actual
government, with all the powers - executive, judicial, and legislative
- which properly belong to a free state. They are organized like
the other States of the Union, and, like them, they make, administer, and
execute the laws which concern their domestic affairs. An existing
de facto government, exercising such functions as these, is itself the
law of the state upon all matters within its jurisdiction. To pronounce
the supreme law making power of an established state illegal is to say
that law itself is unlawful."
"The provisions which these governments have made for the preservation
of order, the suppression of crime, and the redress of private injuries
are in substance and principle the same as those which prevailing the Northern
States and in other civilized countries. They certainly have not
succeeded in preventing the
commission of all crime,
nor has this been accomplished any where in the world....But that people
are maintaining local governments for themselves which habitually defeat
the object of all government and render their own lives and property insecure
is in itself utterly improbable, and the averment of the bill to that effect
is not supported by any evidence which has come to my knowledge...."
"The bill, however, would seem to show upon its face that the establishment
of peace and good order is not its real object. The fifth section
declares that the preceding sections shall crease to operate in any state
where certain events shall have happened. These events are, first,
the selection of delegates to a State convention by an election at which
Negroes shall be allowed to vote; second, the formation of a State Constitution
by the convention so chosen; third, the insertion into the State constitution
of a provision which will secure the right of voting at all elections to
Negroes and to such white men as may not be
disfranchised for rebellion
or felony; fourth, the submission of the Constitution for ratification
by their vote; fifth, the submission of the State Constitution to Congress
for examination and approval, and the actual approval of it by that body;
sixth, the adoption of a certain amendment to the Federal Constitution
by a vote of Legislature
elected under the new Constitution; seventh, the adoption of said amendment
by a sufficient number of other States to make it a part of the Constitution
of the United States. All these conditions must be fulfilled before
the people of any of these States can be relieved from the bondage of military
domination; but when they are fulfilled, then immediately the pains and
penalties of the bill are to cease, no matter whether there be peace and
order or not, and without any reference to the security of life or property.
The excuse given for the bill in the preamble is it establishes is plainly
to be used, not for any purpose of order or for the prevention of crime,
but solely as am means of coercing the people into the adoption of principles
and measures to which it is known that they are opposed, and upon which
they have an undeniable right to exercise their own judgment."
"I submit to Congress whether this measure is not in its whole character,
scope, and object without precedent and without authority, in palpable
conflict with the plainest provisions of liberty and humanity for which
our ancestors on both sides of the Atlantic have shed so much blood, and
expended so much treasure."
"The ten States named in the bill are divided into five districts.
For each district an officer of the Army, not below the rank of a brigadier-general,
is to be appointed to rule over the people; and he is to be supported with
an efficient military force to enable him to perform his duties and enforce
his authority. Those duties and that authority, as defined by the
third section of the bill, are 'to protect all persons in their rights
of person and property, to suppress insurrection, disorder, and violence,
and to punish or cause to be punished all disturbers of the public peace
or criminals'. The power thus given to commanding officer over all
the people of each district is that of an absolute monarch. His mere
will is to take the place of all law...."
"It is plain that the authority here given to the military officer amounts
to absolute despotism. But to make it still more unendurable, the
bill provides that it may be delegated to as many subordinates as he chooses
to appoint, for it declares that he shall 'punish or cause to be punished'.
Such a power has not been wielded by any Monarch in England for more than
five hundred years. In all that time no people who speak the English
language have borne such servitude. It reduces the whole population
of the ten States- all persons, of every color, sex and condition, and
every stranger within their limits- to the most abject and degrading slavery.
No master ever had a control so absolute over the slaves as this bill gives
to the military officers over both white and colored persons...."
"I come now to a question which is, if possible, still more important.
Have we the power to establish and carry into execution a measure like
this? I answer, 'Certainly not', if we derive our authority from
the Constitution and if we are bound by the limitations which is imposes."
"This proposition is perfectly clear, that no branch of the Federal Government-
executive, legislative, or judicial- can have any just powers except those
which it derives through and exercises under the organic laws of the Union.
Outside of the Constitution we have no legal authority more than private
citizens, and within it we have only so much as that instrument gives us.
This broad principle limits all our functions and applies to all subjects.
It protects not only the citizens of States which are within the Union,
but it shields every human being who comes or is brought under our jurisdiction.
We have no right to do in one place more than in another that which the
Constitution says we shall not do at all. If, therefore, the Southern
States were in truth out of the Union, we could not treat their people
in a way which the fundamental law forbids. Some persons assume that
the success of our arms in crushing the opposition which was made in some
of the States to the execution of the Federal laws reduced those States
and all their people - the innocent as well as the guilty - to the condition
of vassalage and gave us a power over them which the Constitution does
not bestow or define or limit. No fallacy can be more transparent
than this. Our victories subjected the insurgents to legal obedience,
not to the yoke of an arbitrary despotism. When an absolute sovereign
reduces hi s rebellious subjects, he may deal with them according to his
pleasure, because he had that power before. But when a limited monarch
puts down an insurrection, he must still govern according to law...."
"This is a bill passed by Congress in time of peace. There is not
in any one of the States brought under its operation either war or insurrection.
The laws of the States and of the Federal Government are all in undisturbed
and harmonious operation. The courts, State and Federal, are open
and in the full exercise of their proper authority. Over every State
comprised in these five military districts, life, and property are secured
by State laws and Federal laws, and the National Constitution is every
where in force and every where obeyed. What, then is the ground on
which the bill proceeds? The title of the bill announces that it
is intended 'for the more efficient government' of these ten States.
It is recited by way of preamble that no legal State Governments 'nor adequate
protection for life or property' exist in those States, and that peace
and good order should be thus recitals, which prepare the way for martial
law, is this, that the only foundation upon which martial law can exist
under our form of Government is not stated or so much as pretended.
Actual war, foreign invasion, domestic insurrection -none of these appear;
and none of these, in fact exist. It is not even recited that any
sort of war or insurrection is threatened. Let us pause to consider,
upon this question of constitutional law and power of Congress, a recent
decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in ex parte Milligan,
I will first quote form the opinion of the majority of the Court: 'Martial
law can not arise from a threatened invasion. The necessity must
be actual and present, the invasion real, such as effectually closes the
courts and deposes the civil administration'."
"We see that martial law come in only when actual war closes the courts
and deposes the civil authority; but this bill, in time of peace, makes
martial law operate as though we were in actual war, and becomes the cause
instead of the consequence of the abrogation of civil authority.
One more quotation: 'It
follows from what has
been said on this subject that there are occasions when martial law can
be properly applied. If in foreign invasion or civil war the courts
are actually closed, and it is impossible to administer criminal justice
according to law, then, on the theater of active military operations, where
war really prevails, there is a necessity to furnish a substitute for the
civil authority thus overthrown, to preserve the safety of the army and
society; and as no power is left by the military, it is allowed to govern
by martial rule until the laws can have their free course."
"I now quote from the opinion of the minority of the court, delivered by
Chief Justice Chase: 'We by no means assert that Congress can establish
and apply the laws of war where no war has been declared or exists.
Where peace exists, the laws of peace must prevail.'"
"This sufficiently explicit. Peace exists in all the territory to
which this bill applies. It asserts a power in Congress, in time
of peace, to set aside the laws of peace and to substitute the laws of
war. The minority, concurring with the majority, declares that Congress
does not possess that power....I need not say to the representatives of
the American people that their Constitution forbids the exercise of judicial
power in any way but one- that is, by the ordained and established courts.
It is equally well known that in all criminal cases a trial by jury is
made indispensable by the express words of that instrument."
"...The Constitution also forbids the arrest of the citizen without judicial
warrant, founded on probable cause. This bill authorizes an arrest
without warrant, at pleasure of a military commander. The Constitution
declares that 'no person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise
infamous crime unless
on presentment of a
grand jury'. This bill holds ever person not a soldier answerable
for all crimes and all charges without any presentment. The Constitution
declares that 'no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property
without due process of law'. This bill sets aside all process of
law, and makes the citizen answerable in his person and property to the
will of one man, and as to his life to the will of two. Finally,
the Constitution declares that 'the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus
shall not be suspended unless when, in case of rebellion or invasion, the
public safety may require it'; whereas this bill declares martial law (which
of itself suspends this great writ)
in time of peace, and
authorizes the military to make the arrest, and gives to the prisoner only
one privilege, and that is trial 'without unnecessary delay'. He
has no hope of release from custody, except the hope, such as it is, of
release by acquittal before a military commission."
"The United States are bound to guarantee to each State a republican form
of government. Can it be pretended that this obligation is not palpably
broken if we carry out a measure like this, which wipes away every vestige
of republican government in ten States and puts the life, property, and
honor of all people in each of them under domination of a single person
clothed with unlimited authority?"
"....,here is a bill of attainder against 9,000,000 people at once.
It is based upon an accusation so vague as to be scarcely intelligible
and found to be true upon no credible evidence. Not one of the 9,000,000
was heard in his own defense. The representatives of the doomed parties
were excluded from all
participation in the
trial. The conviction is to be followed by the most ignominious punishment
ever inflicted on large messes of men. It disfranchises them by hundreds
of thousands and degrades them all, even those who are admitted to be guiltless,
from the rank of freeman to the condition of slaves."
"The purpose and object of the bill- the general intent which pervades
it from beginning to end- is to change the entire structure and character
of the State Governments and to compel them by force to the adoption of
organic laws and regulations which they are unwilling to accept if left
to themselves. The
Negroes have not asked
for the privilege of voting; the vast majority of them have no idea what
it means. This bill not only thrusts it into their hands, but compels
them, as well as the whites, to use it in a particular way. If they
do not form a Constitution with prescribed articles in it and afterwards
elect
a legislature which
will act upon certain measures in a prescribed way, neither blacks nor
whites can be relieved from the slavery which the bill imposes upon them.
Without pausing here to consider the policy or impolicy of Africanizing
the southern part of our territory, I would simply ask the attention of
Congress to the manifest, well-known, and universally acknowledged rule
of Constitutional law which declares that the Federal Government has no
jurisdiction, authority, or power to regulate such subjects for any
State. To force the right of suffrage out of the hands of white people
and into the hands of the Negroes is an arbitrary violation of this principle...."
"That the measure proposed by this bill does violate the Constitution in
the particulars mentioned and in many other ways which I forbear to enumerate
is too clear to admit the least doubt. It only remains to consider
whether the injunctions of that instrument ought to be obeyed or not.
I think they ought to
be obeyed, for reasons
which I will proceed to give as briefly as possible. In the first
place, it is the only system of free Government which we can hope to have
as a Nation. When it ceases to be the rule of our conduct, we may
perhaps take our choice between complete anarchy, a consolidated despotism,
and a total
dissolution of the Union;
but national liberty regulated by law will have passed beyond our reach..."
"It was to punish the gross crime of defying the Constitution and to vindicate
its supreme authority that we carried on a bloody war of four year's duration.
Shall we now acknowledge that we sacrificed a million of lives and expended
billions of treasure to enforce a Constitution which is not worthy of respect
and preservation?...."
"It is a part of our public history which can never be forgotten that both
Houses of Congress, in July 1861, declared in the form of a soleman resolution
that the war was and should be carried on for no purpose of subjugation,
but solely to enforce the Constitutional rights of the States and of individuals
unimpaired. This resolution was adopted and sent forth to the world
unanimously by the Senate and with only two dissenting voices in the House.
It was accepted by the friends of the Union in the South as well as in
the North as expressing honestly and truly the object of the war.
On the faith of it many thousands
of persons in both sections
gave their lives and their fortunes to the cause. To repudiate it
now by refusing to the States and to the individuals within them the 'rights'
which the Constitution and laws of the Union would secure to them is a
breach of our plighted honor for which I can imagine no excuse and to which
I cannot voluntarily become a party...."
"....I am thoroughly convinced that any settlement or compromise or plan
of actions which is inconsistent with the principles of the Constitution
will not only be unavailing, but mischievous; that is will but multiply
the present evils, instead of removing them. The Constitution, in
its whole integrity and vigor, throughout the length and breadth of the
land, is the best of all compromises. Besides, our duty does not,
in my judgment, leave us a choice between that and any other. I believe
that it contains the remedy that is so much needed, and that if the coordinate
branches of the Government would unite upon its provisions they would be
found broad enough and strong enough to sustain in time of peace the Nation
which they bore safely through the ordeal of a protracted civil war.
Among the most sacred guaranties of that instrument are those which declare
that 'each State shall have at least one Representative', and that 'no
State, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in
the Senate'. Each House is made the 'judge of the elections, returns
and qualifications of its own members,' and may, 'with the concurrence
of two-thirds, expel a member'. Thus, as heretofore urged, 'in the
admission of Senators and Representatives from any and all of the States
there can no just ground of apprehension that persons who are disloyal
will be clothed with the powers of legislation, for this could not happen
when the Constitution and the laws are enforced by a vigilant and faithful
Congress'. When a Senator or Representative presents his certificate
of election, he may at once be admitted or rejected, or, should there be
any question as to his eligibility, his credentials may be referred for
investigation to the appropriate committee. If admitted to a seat,
it must be upon evidence satisfactory to the House of which he thus becomes
a member that he possesses the requisite constitutional and legal qualifications.
If refused admission as a member for want of due allegiance to the Government,
and returned to his constituents, they are admonished that none but persons
loyal to the United States will be allowed a voice in the legislative councils
of the Nation, and the political power and moral influence of Congress
are thus effectively exerted in the interests of loyalty to the Government
and fidelity of the Union...."
"While we are legislating upon subjects which are of great importance to
the whole people, and which must affect all parts of the country, not only
hurting the life of the present generation, but for ages to come, we should
remember that all men are entitled at least to a hearing in the councils
which decide upon the destiny of themselves and their children. At
present ten States are denied representation, and when the Fortieth Congress
assembles on the 4th day of the present month sixteen States will be without
a voice in the House of Representatives. This grave fact, with the
important questions before us, should
induce us to pause in
a course of legislation which, looking solely to the attainment of political
ends, fails to consider the rights it transgresses, the law which it violates,
or the institutions which it imperils."
Andrew Johnson
Footnote #9
Article 1. "A place,
district, or country occupied by an enemy
of the invading or occupying
army, whether any proclamation
declaring Martial Law,
or any public warning to the inhabitants,
has been issued or not.
Martial Law is the immediate and direct
effect and consequence
of occupation or conquest."
Gen. Orders No. 100
by President Lincoln, 24 April 1863
Art. 3. "Martial Law
in a hostile country consists in the
suspension, by the occupying
military authority, of the criminal
and civil law, and of
the domestic administration and government
in the occupied place
or territory, and in the substitution of
military rule and force
for the same, as well as in the dictation
of general laws, as
far as military necessity requires this
suspension, substitution,
or dictation."
Gen. Orders No. 100
by President Lincoln, 24 April 1863
"The commander of the forces may proclaim that the
administration of all
civil and penal law shall continue either
wholly or in part, as
in times of peace, unless otherwise ordered
by the military authority."
Gen. Orders No. 100
by President Lincoln, 24 April 1863
Art. 6. "All civil and
penal law shall continue to take its usual
course in the enemy's
places and territories under Martial Law,
unless interrupted or
stopped by order of the occupying military
power; but all the functions
of the hostile government -
legislative executive,
or administrative - whether of a general,
provincial, or local
character, cease under Martial Law, or
continue only with the
sanction, or, if deemed necessary, the
participation of the
occupier or invader."
Gen. Orders No. 100
by President Lincoln, 24 April 1863
Art. 10. "Martial Law
affects chiefly the police and collection
of public revenue and
taxes, whether imposed by the expelled
government or by the
invader, and refers mainly to the support
and efficiency of the
army, its safety, and the safety of its
operations."
Gen. Orders No. 100
by President Lincoln, 24 April 1863
Art. 12. "Whenever feasible,
Martial Law is carried out in cases
of individual offenders
by Military Courts; but sentences of
death shall be executed
only with the approval of the chief
executive, provided
the urgency of the case does not require a
speedier execution,
and then only with the approval of the chief
commander."
Gen. Orders No. 100
by President Lincoln, 24 April 1863
Art. 13."Military jurisdiction
is of two kinds: First, that which
is conferred and defined
by statute; second, that which is
derived from the common
law of war. Military offenses under the
statute law must be
tried in the manner therein directed; but
military offenses which
do not come within the statute must be
tried and punished under
the common law of war. The character of
the courts which exercise
these jurisdictions depends upon the
local laws of each particular
country."
Gen. Orders No. 100
by President Lincoln, 24 April 1863
Art. 17. "War is not
carried on by arms alone. It is lawful to
starve the hostile belligerent,
armed or unarmed, so that it
leads to the speedier
subjection of the enemy."
Gen. Orders No. 100
by President Lincoln, 24 April 1863
Art. 26. "Commanding
generals may cause the magistrates and civil
officers of the hostile
country to take the oath of temporary
allegiance or an oath
of fidelity to their own victorious
government or rulers,
and they may expel everyone who declines to
do so. But whether they
do so or not, the people and their civil
officers owe strict
obedience to them as long as they hold sway
over the district or
country, at the peril of their lives."
Gen. Orders No. 100
by President Lincoln, 24 April 1863
Art. 31. "A victorious
army appropriates all public money, seizes
all public movable property
until further direction by its
government, and sequesters
for its own benefit or of that of its
government all the revenues
of real property belonging to the
hostile government or
nation. The title to such real property
remains in abeyance
during military occupation, and until the
conquest is made complete."
Gen. Orders No. 100
by President Lincoln, 24 April 1863
Art. 33. "It is no longer
considered lawful - on the contrary, it
is held to be a serious
breach of the law of war - to force the
subjects of the enemy
into the service of the victorious
government, except the
latter should proclaim, after a fair and
complete conquest of
the hostile country or district, that it is
resolved to keep the
country, district, or place permanently as
its own and make it
a portion of its own country."
Gen. Orders No. 100
by President Lincoln, 24 April 1863
Art. 39. "The salaries
of civil officers of the hostile
government who remain
in the invaded territory, and continue the
work of their office,
and can continue it according to the
circumstances arising
out of the war - such as judges,
administrative or police
officers, officers of city or communal
governments - are paid
from the public revenue of the invaded
territory, until the
military government has reason wholly or
partially to discontinue
it. Salaries or incomes connected with
purely honorary titles
are always stopped."
Gen. Orders No. 100
by President Lincoln, 24 April 1863
Art. 41. "All municipal
law of the ground on which the armies
stand, or of the countries
to which they belong, is silent and of
no effect between armies
in the field."
Gen. Orders No. 100
by President Lincoln, 24 April 1863
Art. 43. "Therefore,
in a war between the United States and a
belligerent which admits
of slavery, if a person held in bondage
by that belligerent
be captured by or come as a fugitive under
the protection of the
military forces of the United States, such
person is immediately
entitled to the rights and privileges of a
freeman To return such
person into slavery would amount to
enslaving a free person,
and neither the United States nor any
officer under their
authority can enslave any human being.
Moreover, a person so
made free by the law of war is under the
shield of the law of
nations, and the former owner or State can
have, by the law of
postliminy, no belligerent lien or claim of
service."
Gen. Orders No. 100
by President Lincoln, 24 April 1863
Footnote #10
"The right to thus occupy an enemy's country and temporarily
provide for its government
has been recognized by previous action
of the executive authority,
and sanctioned by frequent decisions
of this court. The local
government being destroyed, the
conqueror may set up
its own authority, and make rules and
regulations for the
conduct of temporary government, and to that
end may collect taxes
and duties to support the military
authority and carry
on operations incident to the occupation."
Macleod v. U.S, 229
U.S. 416 1913
"The right of one belligerent to occupy and govern the
territory of the enemy
while in its military possession is one of
the incidents of war,
and flows directly from the right to
conquer. We therefore
do not look to the Constitution or
political institutions
of the conqueror for authority to
establish a government
for the territory of the enemy in his
possession, during its
[182 U.S. 222, 231] military occupation,
nor for the rules by
which the powers of such government are
regulated and limited.
Such authority and such rules are derived
directly from the laws
of war, as established by the usage of the
world and confirmed
by the writings of publicists and decisions
of courts,- in fine,
from the law of nations. . . . The municipal
laws of a conquered
territory or the laws which regulate private
rights, continue in
force during military occupation, except so
far as they are suspended
or changed by the acts of the
conqueror. . . . He,
nevertheless, has all the powers of a de
facto government, and
can at his pleasure either change the
existing laws or make
new ones." Dooley v. U.S., 182 U.S. 222
1901
"Look at it practically from another point of view.
Certainly, before revenue
laws can be made operative in a
district or country
it is essential that the situation be taken
into account, for the
purpose of establishing ports of entry,
collection districts,
and the necessary [182 U.S. 222, 242]
machinery to enforce
them. Of course, it is patent that such
investigations cannot
be made prior to acquisition. But, as the
laws immediately extend,
without action of Congress, as the
result of acquisition,
it must follows that they extend, although
none of the means and
instrumentalities for their successful
enforcement can possibly
be devised until the acquisition is
completed. This must
be, unless it be held that there is power in
the government of the
United States to enter a foreign country,
examine its situation,
and enact legislation for it before it has
passed under the sovereignty
of the United States. From the point
of view of the United
States, then, it seems to me that the
doctrine of the immediate
placing of the tariff laws outside the
line of newly acquired
territory, however extreme may be the
opinion entertained
of the doctrine of immediate incorporation,
is inadmissible and
in conflict with the Constitution."
Dooley v. U.S., 182
U.S. 222 1901
"The jurisdiction of the conqueror is complete. He may
change the form of government
and the laws at his pleasure, and
may exercise every attribute
of sovereignty. The conquered
territory becomes a
part of the domain of the conqueror, subject
to the right of the
nation to which it belonged to recapture it
if they can. By reason
of this right to recapture, the title of
the conqueror is not
perfect until confirmed by treaty of peace.
But this imperfection
in his title is, practically speaking,
important only in case
of alienation made by the conqueror before
treaty. If he sells,
he sells subject to the right of recapture."
"But although, for purposes of sale, the title of the
conqueror is imperfect
before cession, for purposes of government
and jurisdiction his
title is perfect before cession. As long as
he retains possession
he is sovereign; and not the less sovereign
because his sovereignty
may not endure for ever. [50 U.S. 603,
608] Grotius (ch. 6,
book 3, 4), speaking of the right to things
taken in war, says that
land is reputed lost which is so secured
by fortifications that
without their being forced it cannot be
repossessed by the first
owner. And in ch. 8, book 3, treating of
empire over the conquered,
he shows that sovereignty may be
acquired by conquest."
Fleming v. Page, 50 U.S. 603 1850
"1st. That, by conquest and firm military occupation of a
portion of an enemy's
country, the sovereignty of the nation to
which the conquered
territory belongs is subverted, and the
sovereignty of the conqueror
is substituted in its place."
"2d. That although this sovereignty, until cession by
treaty, is subject to
be ousted by the enemy, and therefore does
not give an indefeasible
title for purposes of alienation, yet
while it exists it is
supreme, and confers jurisdiction without
limit over the conquered
territory, and the right to allegiance
in return for protection."
Fleming v. Page, 50 U.S. 603 1850
"It cannot be denied that these principles, established by
the common consent of
the civilized world, must govern the title
to conquests made by
the United States. As one of the family of
nations, they are bound
by the law of nations, and the nature and
effect of their acquisitions
by conquest must be defined and
regulated by that law."
Fleming v. Page, 50 U.S. 603 1850
"The messages of the President to Congress during the war,
and the instructions
from the heads of departments, contain
authoritative declarations
as to the right of the United States
to acquire foreign territory
by conquest, and as to the effect of
such conquest upon the
sovereignty of the conquered territory, in
accordance with the
principles above stated. Thus, the President,
in his message of December,
1846, says:- 'By the law of nations a
conquered territory
is subject to be governed by the conqueror
during his military
possession, and until there is either a
treaty of peace or he
shall voluntarily withdraw from it. The old
civil government being
necessarily superseded, it is the right
and duty of the conqueror
to secure his conquest, and to provide
for the maintenance
of civil order and the rights of the
inhabitants. This right
has been exercised and this duty
performed by our military
and naval commanders, by the
establishment of temporary
governments in some of the conquered
provinces in Mexico,
assimilating them as far as practicable to
the free institutions
of our own country." Fleming v. Page, 50
U.S. 603 1850
"A war, therefore, declared by Congress, can never be
presumed to be waged
for the purpose of conquest or the
acquisition of territory;
nor does the law declaring the war
imply an authority to
the President to enlarge the limits of the
United States by subjugating
the enemy's country. The United
States, it is true,
may extend its boundaries by conquest or
treaty, and [50 U.S.
603, 615] may demand the cession of
territory as the condition
of peace, in order to indemnify its
citizens for the injuries
they have suffered, or to reimburse the
government for the expenses
of the war. But this can be done only
by the treaty-making
power or the legislative authority, and is
not a part of the power
conferred upon the President by the
declaration of war.
His duty and his power are purely military.
As commander-in-chief,
he is authorized to direct the movements
of the naval and military
forces placed by law at his command,
and to employ them in
the manner he may deem most effectual to
harass and conquer and
subdue the enemy. He may invade the
hostile country, and
subject it to the sovereignty and authority
of the United States.
But his conquests do not enlarge the
boundaries of this Union,
nor extend the operation of our
institutions and laws
beyond the limits before assigned to them
by the legislative power."
Fleming v. Page, 50 U.S. 603 1850
"The theory that a country remains foreign with respect to
the tariff laws until
Congress has acted by embracing it within
the customs union presupposes
that a country may be domestic for
one purpose and foreign
for another. It may undoubtedly become
necessary for the adequate
administration of a domestic territory
to pass a special act
providing the proper machinery and
officers, as the President
would have no authority, except under
the war power, to administer
it himself; but no act is necessary
to make it domestic
territory if once it has been ceded to the
United States. . . .
This theory also presupposes that territory
may be held indefinitely
by the United States; that it may be
treated in every particular,
except for tariff purposes, as
domestic territory;
that laws may be enacted and enforced by
officers of the United
States sent there for that purpose; that
insurrections [183 U.S.
176, 179] may be suppressed, wars carried
on, revenues collected,
taxes imposed; in short, that everything
may be done which a
government can do within its own boundaries,
and yet that the territory
may still remain a foreign country.
That this state of things
may continue for years, for a century
even, but that, until
Congress enacts otherwise, it still remains
a foreign country. To
hold that this can be done as matter of law
we deem to be pure judicial
legislation. We find no warrant for
it in the Constitution
or in the powers conferred upon this
court. It is true the
non action of Congress may occasion a
temporary inconvenience;
but it does not follow that courts of
justice are authorized
to remedy it by inverting the ordinary
meaning of words."
The Diamond Rings, 183 U.S. 176 1901
"Footnotes: Resolved by the Senate and House of
Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress
assembled, That by the
ratification of the treaty of peace with
Spain it is not intended
to incorporate the inhabitants of the
Philippine islands into
citizenship of the United States, nor is
it intended to permanently
annex said islands as an integral part
of the territory of
the United States; but it is the intention of
the United States to
establish on said islands a government
suitable to the wants
and conditions of the inhabitants of said
island to prepare
them for local self-government, and in due
time to make such disposition
of said islands as will best
promote the interests
of the United States and the inhabitants of
said islands." Cong.
Rec., 55th Cong. 3d Sess. vol. 32, p. 1847.
The Diamond Rings, 183
U.S. 176 1901
Footnote #11
James Montgomery
C/O 100 Bridlewood Rd.
High Point North Carolina
August 27, 1995
Dear Sheriff ....,
I just want to say at the outset that your reputation precedes you.
Those that live in ....... County are fortunate, because your method of
fighting crime works, and will restore the public's trust in local law
enforcement.
As a matter of introduction I am a former United States Marine, and I am
a Christian. My friend Bill is delivering this letter; you have already
talked to him about this information. I want you to keep one thing in mind,
YOU have the ability to understand the information in this letter.
YOU have the ability
to understand the present
law and past law, the Constitution. That's right!...I'm saying the
Constitution is past tense, as a restrictive document on Congress.
I do not make this statement lightly and I can prove it. The Constitution
was a commercial compact between states, giving the federal government
limited powers. The Bill of Rights was meant not as our source of
rights, but as further limitations on the federal government. Our
fore-fathers saw the potential for danger in the U. S. Constitution.
To insure the Constitution was not presumed to be our source of rights,
the 10th Amendment was added. I will use a quote from Thomas Jefferson,
February 15, 1791, where he quotes the 10th Amendment...
"I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on
this ground; That "all
powers not delegated to the United States,
by the Constitution,
nor prohibited by it to the States, are
reserved to the States
or to the people."
To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially
drawn around the powers
of Congress, is to take possession of a
boundless field of power,
no longer susceptible of any
definition."
The created United States government cannot define the rights of their
creator, the American people.
Three forms of law were granted to the Constitution, common law, equity
(contract law) and Admiralty law. Each had their own jurisdiction
and purpose. The first issue I want to cover is the United States
flag. Obviously from known history our flag did not have a yellow
fringe bordering three sides. The United
States did not start
putting flags with a yellow fringe on them in government buildings and
public buildings until the 1900's. Of course the question you would
ask yourself; why did it change and are there any legal meanings behind
this? Oh yes!
First the appearance of our flag is defined in Title 4 sec.
1. U.S.C..
"The flag of the United States shall be thirteen horizontal
stripes, alternate red
and white; and the union of the flag shall
be forty-eight stars,
white in a blue field." (my note - of
course when new states
are admitted new stars are added.)
A foot note was added on page 1113 of the same section which
says: "Placing of fringe
on the national flag, the dimensions of
the flag, and arrangement
of the stars are matters of detail not
controlled by statute,
but within the discretion of the President
as commander-in-chief
of the army and navy." 1925, 34
Op.Atty.Gen. 483.
The president as military commander can add a yellow fringe
to our flag. When
would this be done? During time of war. Why?
A flag with a fringe
is an ensign, a military flag. Read the
following.
"Pursuant to U.S.C. Chapter 1, 2, and 3; Executive Order No.
10834, August 21, 1959,
24 F.R. 6865, a military flag is a flag
that resembles the regular
flag of the United States, except that
it has a YELLOW FRINGE,
bordered on three sides. The President
of the United states
designates this deviation from the regular
flag, by executive order,
and in his capacity as COMMANDER-IN-
CHIEF of the Armed forces."
From the National Encyclopedia, Volume 4:
"Flag, an emblem of a nation; usually made of cloth and
flown from a staff.
From a military standpoint flags are of two
general classes, those
flown from stationary masts over army
posts, and those carried
by troops in formation. The former are
referred to by the general
name flags. The latter are called
colors when carried
by dismounted troops. Colors and Standards
are more nearly square
than flags and are made of silk with a
knotted Fringe of Yellow
on three sides...use of the flag. The
most general and appropriate
use of the flag is as a symbol of
authority and power."
The reason I started with the Flag issue is because it is so easy to grasp.
The main problem I have with the yellow fringe is that by its use our Constitutional
Republic is no more. Our system of law was changed without the public's
knowledge. It was kept secret, this is fraud, the American people
were allowed to believe this was just a decoration. Because the law
changed from Common Law (God's Law) to Admiralty Law (the kings law) your
status also changed from sovereign to subject. From being able to
own property (allodial title) to not owning property (tenet on the land).
If you think you own your property, stop paying taxes, it will be taken
under the prize law.
"The ultimate ownership of all property is in the state;
individual so-called
`ownership' is only by virtue of government,
i.e., law, amounting
to a mere user; and use must be in
accordance with law
and subordinate to the necessities of the
State." Senate Document
No. 43, "Contracts payable in Gold"
written in 1933.
By our allowing to let these military flags fly, the American people have
admitted our defeat and loss of status. Read on, you'll see what
I mean. Remember the Constitution recognizes three forms of law,
being governed by the Law of the Flag is Admiralty law. I will cover
this in a minute, the following is a definition of the legal term Law of
the Flag.
"...The agency of the master is devolved upon him by the law
of the flag. The
same law that confers his authority ascertains
its limits, and the
flag at the mast-head is notice to all the
world of the extent
of such power to bind the owners or
freighters by his act.
The foreigner who deals with this agent
has notice of that law,
and, if he be bound by it, there is not
injustice. His
notice is the national flag which is hoisted on
every sea and under
which the master sails into every port, and
every circumstance that
connects him with the vessel isolates
that vessel in the eyes
of the world, and demonstrates his
relation to the owners
and freighters as their agent for a
specific purpose and
with power well defined under the national
maritime law." Bouvier's
Law Dictionary, 1914.
Don't be thrown by the fact they are talking about the sea, and that it
doesn't apply to land, I will prove to you that Admiralty law has come
on land. Next a court case:
"Pursuant to the "Law of the Flag", a military flag does
result in jurisdictional
implication when flown. The Plaintiff
cites the following:
"Under what is called international law, the
law of the flag, a shipowner
who sends his vessel into a foreign
port gives notice by
his flag to all who enter into contracts
with the shipmaster
that he intends the law of the flag to
regulate those contracts
with the shipmaster that he either
submit to its operation
or not contract with him or his agent at
all." Ruhstrat v. People,
57 N.E. 41, 45, 185 ILL. 133, 49 LRA
181, 76 AM.
This is the legality I spoke of. When you walk into a court and see
this flag you are put on notice that you are in a Admiralty Court and that
the king is in control. Also, if there is a king the people are no
longer sovereign. You're probably saying this is the most incredible
thing I have ever heard. YOU have read the proof, it will stand up in court.
But wait there is more, you probably would say, how could this happen?
Here's how. Admiralty law is for the sea, maritime law governs contracts
between parties that trade over the sea. Well, that's what our forefathers
intended. However, in 1845 Congress passed an act saying Admiralty
law could come on land.
The bill may be traced
in Cong. Globe, 28th Cong., 2d. Sess. 43, 320, 328, 337, 345 (1844-45),
no opposition to the Act is reported. Congress held a committee on
this subject in 1850 and they said:
"The committee also alluded to "the great force" of "the
great constitutional
question as to the power of Congress to
extend maritime jurisdiction
beyond the ground occupied by it at
the adoption of the
Constitution...." Ibid. H.R. Rep. No. 72 31st
Cong., 1st Sess. 2 (1850)
It was up to the Supreme Court to stop Congress and say NO! The Constitution
did not give you that power, nor was it intended. But no, the courts
began a long train of abuses, here are some excerpts from a few court cases.
"This power is as extensive upon land as upon water. The
Constitution makes no
distinction in that respect. And if the
admiralty jurisdiction,
in matters of contract and tort which the
courts of the United
States may lawfully exercise on the high
seas, can be extended
to the lakes under the power to regulate
commerce, it can with
the same propriety and upon the same
construction, be extended
to contracts and torts on land when the
commerce is between
different States. And it may embrace also
the vehicles and persons
engaged in carrying it on (my note -
remember what the law
of the flag said when you receive benefits
from the king.)
It would be in the power of Congress to confer
admiralty jurisdiction
upon its courts, over the cars engaged in
transporting passengers
or merchandise from one State to another,
and over the persons
engaged in conducting them, and deny to the
parties the trial by
jury. Now the judicial power in cases of
admiralty and maritime
jurisdiction, has never been supposed to
extend to contracts
made on land and to be executed on land. But
if the power of regulating
commerce can be made the foundation of
jurisdiction in its
courts, and a new and extended admiralty
jurisdiction beyond
its heretofore known and admitted limits, may
be created on water
under that authority, the same reason would
justify the same exercise
of power on land." Propeller Genessee
Chief et al. v. Fitzhugh
et al. 12 How. 443 (U.S. 1851)
"Next to revenue (taxes) itself, the late extensions of the
jurisdiction of the
admiralty are our greatest grievance. The
American Courts of Admiralty
seem to be forming by degrees into a
system that is to overturn
our Constitution and to deprive us of
our best inheritance,
the laws of the land. It would be thought
in England a dangerous
innovation if the trial, of any matter on
land was given to the
admiralty." Jackson v. Magnolia, 20 How.
296 315, 342 (U.S. 1852)
This began the most dangerous precedent of all the Insular Cases.
This is where Congress took a boundless field of power. When legislating
for the states, they are bound by the Constitution, when legislating for
their insular possessions they are not restricted in any way by the Constitution.
Read the following quote from the Harvard law review:
"These courts, then, are not constitutional courts in which
the judicial power conferred
by the Constitution on the general
government can be deposited.
They are incapable of receiving it.
They are legislative
courts, created in virtue of the general
right of sovereignty
which exists in the government, or in virtue
of that clause which
enables Congress to make all needful rules
and regulations respecting
the territory belonging to the united
States. The jurisdiction
with which they are invested is not a
part of that judicial
power which is conferred in the third
article of the Constitution,
but is conferred by Congress in the
execution of those general
powers which that body possesses over
the territories of the
United States." Harvard Law Review, Our
New Possessions. page
481.
Here are some Court cases that make it even clearer Mr.
....:
"...[T]he United States may acquire territory by conquest or by treaty,
and may govern it through the exercise of the power of Congress conferred
by Section 3 of Article IV of the Constitution..."
"In exercising this power, Congress is not subject to the
same constitutional
limitations, as when it is legislating for
the United States.
...And in general the guaranties of the
Constitution, save as
they are limitations upon the exercise of
executive and legislative
power when exerted for or over our
insular possessions,
extend to them only as Congress, in the
exercise of its legislative
power over territory belonging to the
United States,
has made those guarantees applicable." Hooven &
Allison & Co. vs
Evatt, 324 U.S. 652 (1945)
"The idea prevails with some indeed, it found expression in
arguments at the bar
that we have in this country substantially
or practically two national
governments; one to be maintained
under the Constitution,
with all its restrictions; the other to
be maintained by Congress
outside and independently of that
instrument, by exercising
such powers as other nations of the
earth are accustomed
to exercise."
"I take leave to say that if the principles thus announced
should ever receive
the sanction of a majority of this court, a
radical and mischievous
change in our system of government will
be the result.
We will, in that event, pass from the era of
constitutional liberty
guarded and protected by a written
constitution into an
era of legislative absolutism."
"It will be an evil day for American liberty if the theory
of a government outside
of the supreme law of the land finds
lodgment in our constitutional
jurisprudence. No higher duty
rests upon this court
than to exert its full authority to prevent
all violation of the
principles of the constitution." Downes vs
Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244
(1901)
These actions allowed Admiralty law to come on land. If you will
remember the definition of the Law of the Flag. When you receive
benefits or enter into contracts with the king you come under his law which
is Admiralty law. And what is a result of your connection with the
king? A loss of your Sovereign status.
Our ignorance of the
law is no excuse. I'll give you an example, something you deal with
everyday. Let's say you give me a seatbelt ticket. What law
did I violate? Remember the Constitution recognizes three forms of
law. Was it common law? Who was the injured party? No
one. So it could not have been common law even though the State of
N. C. has made chapter 20 of the Motor Vehicle code carry common law penalties,
jail time. This was the only thing they could do to cover up the
jurisdiction they were operating in. Was it Equity law? No,
there is no contract in dispute, driving is a privilege granted by the
king. If it were
a contract the UCC would
apply, and it doesn't. In a contract both parties have equal rights.
In a privilege, you do as you are told or the privilege is revoked.
Well guess what, there is only one form of law left, admiralty. Ask
yourself when did licenses begin to be required? 1933.
All district courts are admiralty courts, see the Judiciary Act of 1789.
"It is only with the extent of powers possessed by the
district courts, acting
as instance courts of admiralty, we are
dealing. The Act
of 1789 gives the entire constitutional power
to determine "all civil
causes of admiralty and maritime
jurisdiction," leaving
the courts to ascertain its limits, as
cases may arise." Waring
ET AL,. v. Clarke, Howard 5 12 L. ed.
1847
When you enter a court room and come before the judge and the U.S.
flag with the yellow fringe flying, you are put on notice of the law you
are in. American's aren't aware of this, so they continue to claim
Constitutional rights. In the Admiralty setting the constitution
does not apply and the judge, if pushed, will inform you of this by placing
you under contempt for continuing to bring it up. If the judge is
pressed, his name for this hidden law is statutory law. Where are
the rules and regulations for statutory law kept? They don't exist.
If statuary law existed, there would be rules and regulations governing
it's procedures and court rules. They do not exist!!!
The way you know this is Admiralty, is from the yellow fringed flag and
from the actions of the law, compelled performance (Admiralty). The
judges can still move at common law (murder etc.) and equity (contract
disputes etc.). It's up to the type of case brought before the court.
If the case is Admiralty, the only way back to the common law is the saving
to suitor clause and action under Admiralty. The court and rules
of all three jurisdictions have been blended. Under Admiralty you
are compelled to perform under the agreement you made by asking and receiving
the king's government (license). You receive the benefit of driving
on federal roads (military roads), so you have voluntarily obligated yourself
to this system of law, this is why you are compelled to obey. If
you don't it will cost you money or jail time or both. The type of
offense determines the jurisdiction you come under, but the court itself
is an Admiralty court, defined by the flag. Driving without a seat
belt under Chapter 20 DMV code carries a criminal penalty for a non common
law offense. Again where is the injured party or parties, this is Admiralty
law. Here is a quote to prove what I said about the roads being military,
this is only one benefit, there are many:
"Whilst deeply convinced of these truths, I yet consider it
clear that under the
war-making power Congress may appropriate
money toward the construction
of a military road when this is
absolutely necessary
for the defense of any State or Territory of
the Union against foreign
invasion. Under the Constitution
Congress has power "to
declare war," "to raise and support
armies," "to provide
and maintain a navy," and to call forth the
militia to "repel invasions."
Thus endowed, in an ample manner,
with the war-making
power, the corresponding duty is required
that "the United States
shall protect each of them [the States]
against invasion."
Now, how is it possible to afford this
protection to California
and our Pacific possessions except by
means of a military
road through the Territories of the United
States, over which men
and munitions of war may be speedily
transported from the
Atlantic States to meet and to repel the
invader?....Besides,
the Government, ever since its origin, has
been in the constant
practice of constructing military roads."
Inaugural Address of
James Buchanan, March 4, 1857,..Messages and
Papers of the Presidents,
1789-1902.
I want to briefly mention the Social Security Act, the nexus Agreement
you have with the king. You were told the SS# was for retirement
and you had to have it to work. It sounds like a license to me, and
it is, it is a license granted by the President to work in this country,
under the Trading with the Enemy Act, as amended in March 9, 1933, as you
will see in a moment. Was it really for your retirement? What
does F.I.C.A. stand for? Federal Insurance Contribution Act. What does
contribution mean at law, not Webster's Dictionary. This is
where they were able to get you to admit that you were jointly responsible
for the national debt, and you declared that you were a Fourteenth Amendment
citizen, which I won't go into in this paper or the Erie Railroad v. Tompkins
case where common law was over turned. Read the following definition
to learn what it means to have a SS# and pay a contribution:
Contribution. Right of one who has discharged a common
liability to recover
of another also liable, the aliquot portion
which he ought to pay
or bear. Under principle of
"contribution," a tort-feasor
against whom a judgment is
rendered is entitled
to recover proportional shares of judgment
from other joint tort-feasor
whose negligence contributed to the
injury and who were
also liable to the plaintiff. (foot note *
tort feasor means wrong
doer, what did you do to be defined as a
wrong doer???)
The share of a loss payable by an insure when
contracts with two or
more insurers cover the same loss. The
insurer's share of a
loss under a coinsurance or similar
provision. The
sharing of a loss or payment among several. The
act of any one or several
of a number of co-debtors, co-sureties,
etc., in reimbursing
one of their number who has paid the whole
debt or suffered the
whole liability, each to the extent of his
proportionate share.
(Blacks Law Dictionary 6th ed.)
Guess what? It gets worse. What does this date 1933 mean?
Well you better sit down. First, remember World War I, in 1917 President
Wilson declared the War Powers Act of October 6, 1917, basically stating
that he was stopping all trade with the enemy except for those he granted
a license, excluding Americans. Read the following from this
Trading with the enemy Act, where he defines enemy:
In the War Powers Act of 1917, Chapter 106, Section 2 (c) it
says that these declared
war powers did not affect citizens of
the United States:
"Such other individuals, or body or class of individuals, as
may be natives, citizens,
or subjects of any nation with which
the United States is
at war, OTHER THAN CITIZENS OF THE UNITED
STATES, wherever resident
or wherever doing business, as the
President, if he shall
find the safety of the United States of
the successful prosecution
of the war shall so require, may, by
proclamation, include
within the term "enemy.""
Now, this leads us up to 1933. Our country was recovering from a
depression and now was declared bankrupt. I know you are saying.
Do What, the American people were never told about this? Public policy
and National Security overruled the public right to know. Read the
following Congressional quote:
"My investigation convinced me that during the last quarter
of a century the average
production of gold has been falling off
considerably.
The gold mines of the world are practically
exhausted. There
is only about $11,000,000,000 in gold in the
world, with the United
States owning a little more than four
billions. We have
more than $100,000,000,000 in debts payable in
gold of the present
weight and fineness....As a practical
proposition these contracts
cannot be collected in gold for the
obvious reason that
the gold supply of the entire world is not
sufficient to make payment."
Congressional Record, Congressman
Dies March 15, 1933
Before 1933 all contracts with the government were payable in gold.
Now I ask you? Who in their right mind would enter into contracts
totaling One Hundred billion dollars in gold, when there was only eleven
billion in gold in the whole world, we had about four billion. To
keep from being hung by the American
public they obeyed the
banksters demands and turned over our country to them. They never
came out and said we were in bankruptcy but, the fact remains, we are.
In 1933 the gold of the whole country had to be turned in to the banksters,
and all government contracts in gold were canceled. This is bankruptcy.
"Mr. Speaker, we are here now in chapter 11. Members of
Congress are official
trustees presiding over the greatest
reorganization of any
bankrupt entity in world history, the U.S.
government." Congressman
Traficant on the House floor, March 17,
"1993"
The wealth of the nation including our land was turned over to the banksters.
In return, the nations 100 billion dollar debt was forgiven.
I have two papers that have circulated the country on this. The Congress
of 1933 sold every American into slavery to protect their asses.
Read the following Congressional quotes:
"I want to show you where the people are being imposed upon
by reason of the delegation
of this tremendous power. I invite
your attention to the
fact that section 16 of the Federal Reserve
Act provides that whenever
the Government of the United States
issues and delivers
money, Federal Reserve notes, which are based
on the credit of the
Nation--they represent a mortgage upon your
home and my home, and
upon all the property of all the people of
the Nation--to the Federal
Reserve agent, an interest charge
shall be collected for
the Government." Congressional Record,
Congressman Patman March
13, 1933
"That is the equity of what we are about to do. Yes; you
are going to close us
down. Yes; you have already closed us
down, and have been
doing it long before this year. Our
President says that
for 3 years we have been on the way to
bankruptcy. We
have been on the way to bankruptcy longer than 3
years. We have
been on the way to bankruptcy ever since we began
to allow the financial
mastery of this country gradually to get
into the hands of a
little clique that has held it right up until
they would send us to
the grave." Congressional Record,
Congressman Long March
11, 1933
What did Roosevelt do? Sealed our fate and our childrens' fate, but
worst of all, he declared War on the American People, remember the War
Powers Act, the Trading with the enemy Act. He declared emergency
powers with his authority being the War Powers Act, the Trading with the
enemy Act. The problem is he redefined who the enemy was, read
the following: (remember what I said about the SS# being a license to work)
"The declared National Emergency of March 9, 1933 amended
the War Powers Act to
include the American People as enemies:
"In Title 1, Section 1 it says: The actions, regulations,
rules, licenses, orders
and proclamations heretofore or hereafter
taken, promulgated,
made, or issued by the President of the
United States or the
Secretary of the Treasury since March 4,
1933, pursuant to the
authority conferred by subdivision (b) of
section 5 of the Act
of October 6, 1917, as amended, are hereby
approved and confirmed."
"Section 2. Subdivision (b) of section 5 of the Act of
October 6, 1917, (40
Stat. L. 411), as amended, is hereby amended
to read as follows:
emergency declared by the President, the
President may, through
any agency that he may designate, or
otherwise, investigate,
regulate, or prohibit, under such rules
and regulations as he
may prescribe, by means of licenses or
otherwise, any transactions
in foreign exchange, transfers of
credit between or payments
by banking institutions as defined by
the President, and export,
hoarding, melting, or earmarking of
gold or silver coin
or bullion or currency, BY ANY PERSON WITHIN
THE UNITED STATES OR
ANY PLACE SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION
THEREOF."
Here is the legal phrase subject to the jurisdiction thereof, but at law
this refers to alien enemy and also applies to Fourteenth Amendment citizens:
"As these words are used in the first section of the
Fourteenth Amendment
of the Federal Constitution, providing for
the citizenship of all
persons born or naturalized in the United
States and subject to
the jurisdiction thereof, the purpose would
appear to have been
to exclude by the fewest words (besides
children of members
of the Indian tribes, standing in a peculiar
relation to the National
Government, unknown to the common Law),
the two classes of cases,
children born of *ALIEN
ENEMIES(emphasis mine),
in hostile occupation, and children of
diplomatic representatives
of a foreign state, both of which, by
the law of England and
by our own law, from the time of the first
settlement of the English
colonies in America, had been
recognized exceptions
to the fundamental rule of citizenship by
birth within the country."
United States v Wong Kim Ark, 169 US
649, 682, 42 L Ed 890,
902, 18 S Ct 456. Ballentine's Law
Dictionary
Congressman Beck had
this to say about the War Powers Act:
"I think of all the damnable heresies that have ever been
suggested in connection
with the Constitution, the doctrine of
emergency is the worst.
It means that when Congress declares an
emergency there is no
Constitution. This means its death....But
the Constitution of
the United States, as a restraining influence
in keeping the federal
government within the carefully prescribed
channels of power, is
moribund, if not dead. We are witnessing
its death-agonies, for
when this bill becomes a law, if unhappily
it becomes law, there
is no longer any workable Constitution to
keep the Congress within
the limits of its constitutional
powers." (Congressman
James Beck in Congressional Record 1933)
The following are excerpts from the Senate Report, 93rd
Congress, November 19,
1973, Special Committee On The Termination
Of The National Emergency
United States Senate. They were going
to terminate all emergency
powers, but they found out they did
not have the power to
do this so guess which one stayed in, the
Emergency Act of 1933,
the Trading with the Enemy Act October 6,
1917 as amended in March
9, 1933.
"Since March 9, 1933, the United States has been in a state
of declared national
emergency....Under the powers delegated by
these statutes, the
President may: seize property; organize and
control the means of
production; seize commodities; assign
military forces abroad;
institute martial law; seize and control
all transportation and
communication; regulate the operation of
private enterprise;
restrict travel; and, in a plethora of
particular ways, control
the lives of all American citizens."
"A majority of the people of the United States have lived
all of their lives under
emergency rule. For 40 years, freedoms
and governmental procedures
guaranteed by the Constitution have,
in varying degrees,
been abridged by laws brought into force by
states of national emergency....from,
at least, the Civil War in
important ways shaped
the present phenomenon of a permanent state
of national emergency."
Senate Report, 93rd Congress, November
19, 1973
You may be asking yourself is this the law, and if so where is it, read
the following:
In Title 12 U.S.C, in section 95b you'll find the following
codification of the
Emergency War Powers:
"The actions, regulations, rules, licenses, orders and
proclamations heretofore
or hereafter taken, promulgated, made,
or issued by the President
of the United States or the Secretary
of the Treasury since
March 4, 1933, pursuant to the authority
conferred by subsection
(b) of section 5 of the Act of October 6,
1917, as amended (12
U.S.C., 95a), are hereby approved and
confirmed." (March
9, 1933, c. 1, Title 1, 1, 48 Stat. 1)
So you can further understand the word Alien Enemy and what it means to
be declared an enemy of this government, read the following definitions:
The phrase Alien Enemy is defined in Bouvier's Law Dictionary as: One who
owes allegiance to the adverse belligerent. 1 Kent 73.
He who owes a temporary but not a permanent allegiance is an alien enemy
in respect to acts done during such temporary allegiance only; and when
his allegiance terminates, his hostile character terminates also; 1 B.
& P. 163.
Alien enemies are said to have no rights, no privileges, unless by the
king's special favor, during time of war; 1 Bla. Com. 372; Bynkershoek
195; 8 Term 166. [Remember we've been under a declared state of war since
October 6, 1917, as amended March 9, 1933 to include every United States
citizen.]
"The phrase Alien Enemy is defined in Words and Phrases as:
Residence of person
in territory of nation at war with United
States was sufficient
to characterize him as "alien enemy" within
Trading with the Enemy
Act, even if he had acquired and retained
American citizenship."
Matarrese v. Matarrese, 59 A.2d 262, 265,
142 N.J. Eq. 226.
"Residence or doing business in a hostile territory is the
test of an "alien enemy:
within meaning of Trading with the Enemy
Act and Executive Orders
thereunder." Executive Order March 11,
1942, No. 9095, as amended,
50 U.S.C.A. Appendix 6; Trading with
the Enemy Act 5 (b).
In re Oneida Nat. Bank & Trust Co. of Utica,
53 N.Y.S. 2d. 416, 420,
421, 183 Misc. 374.
"By the modern phrase, a man who resides under the
allegiance and protection
of a hostile state for commercial
purposes is to be considered
to all civil purposes as much an
`alien enemy' as if
he were born there." Hutchinson v. Brock, 11
Mass. 119, 122.
Am I done with the proof? Not quite, believe it or not it gets worse.
I have established that war has been declared against the American people
and their children. The American people that voted for the 1933 government
were responsible for Congress' actions, because Congress was there in their
proxy. What is one of the actions taken against an enemy during time
of War. In the Constitution the Congress was granted the power during
the time of war to grant Letters of Marque. What is a letter of Marque?
Well, read the following:
A commission granted by the government to a private
individual, to take
the property of a foreign state, as a
reparation for an injury
committed by such state, its citizens or
subjects. The
prizes so captured are divided between the owners
of the privateer, the
captain, and the crew. Bouvier's Law
Dictionary 1914.
Think about the mission of the IRS, they are a private organization, or
their backup, the ATF. These groups have been granted letters of
Marque, read the following:
"The trading with the enemy Act, originally and as amended,
in strictly a war measure,
and finds its sanction in the
provision empowering
Congress "to declare war, grant letters of
Marque and reprisal,
and make rules concerning captures on land
and water."
Stoehr v. Wallace 255 U.S.
Under the Constitution the Power of the Government had its checks and balances,
power was divided between the three branches of government. To do
anything else means you no longer have a Constitutional government.
I'm not even talking about the obvious which we have already covered, read
the following:
"The Secretary of the Treasury and/or the Attorney General
may require, by means
of regulations, rulings, instructions, or
otherwise, any person
to keep a full record of, and to furnish
under oath, in the form
of reports or otherwise, from time to
time and at any time
or times, complete information relative to,
any transaction referred
to in section 5 (b) of the Act of
October 6, 1917."
Title 12 Banks and Banking page 570.
How about Clinton's new Executive Order of June 6, 1994 where the Alphabet
agencies are granted their own power to obtain money and the military if
need be to protect themselves. These are un-elected officials, sounds
un-Constitutional to me, but read on.
"The delegations of authority in this Order shall not affect
the authority of any
agency or official pursuant to any other
delegation of presidential
authority, presently in effect or
hereafter made, under
section 5 (b) of the act of October 6,
1917, as amended (12
U.S.C. 95a)"
How can the President delegate to un-elected officials power that he was
elected to have, and declare that it cannot be taken away, by the voters
or the courts or Congress? I tell you how under martial law, under
the War Powers Act. The American public is asleep and is unaware
nor do they care about what is going on, because it may interfere with
their making money. I guess Thomas Jefferson was right again:
"...And to preserve their independence, we must not let our
rulers load us with
perpetual debt. We must make our election
between economy and
liberty or profusion and servitude. If we
run into such debts
as that we must be taxed in our meat and in
our drink, in our necessaries
and our comforts, in our labors and
our amusements, for
our callings and our creeds, as the people of
England are, our people,
like them, must come to labor sixteen
hours in the twenty-four,
and give the earnings of fifteen of
these to the government
for their debts and daily expenses; and
the sixteenth being
insufficient to afford us bread, we must
live, as they now do,
on oatmeal and potatoes; have not time to
think, no means of calling
the mismanager's to account; but be
glad to obtain subsistence
by hiring ourselves to rivet their
chains on the necks
of our fellow sufferers..."
(Thomas Jefferson) THE
MAKING OF AMERICA, p. 395
Submitted January 28
"Lloyd Bentsen, of Texas, to be U.S. Governor of the
International Monetary
Fund for a term of 5 years; U.S. Governor
of the International
Bank for Reconstruction and Development for
a term of 5 years; U.S.
Governor of the Inter-American
Development Bank for
a term of 5 years; U.S. Governor of the
African Development
Bank for a term of 5 years; U.S. Governor of
the Asian Development
Bank; U.S. Governor of African Development
Fund; and U.S. Governor
of the European Bank for Reconstruction
and Development." Presidential
Documents, February 1, 1993.
At the same time, Bentsen was the Secretary of Treasury. Gee I don't
know, this sounds like a conflict of entrust to me, how about you?
Also the Congress is the only one under the Constitution to be able to
appropriate money.
"Without limitation as to any other powers or authority of
the Secretary of the
Treasury or the Attorney General under any
other provision of this
Order, the Secretary of the Treasury is
authorized and empowered
to prescribe from time to time
regulations, rulings,
and instructions to carry out the purposes
of this Order and to
provide therein or otherwise the conditions
under which licenses
may be granted by or through such officers
or agencies as the Secretary
of the Treasury may designate, and
the decision of the
Secretary with respect to the granting,
denial or other disposition
of an application or license shall be
final." Section 7, Title
12 U.S.C. Banks and Banking
How about a few months ago when Secretary of Treasury Rubin sent tons of
money to Mexico, without Congress' approval. Do the issues I have
brought up sound like this is a Constitutional government to you?
I have not covered the main nexus, the money. If you would like to
read about this, read my other papers, The History of Lawful Money and
A Country Defeated In Victory.
Sheriff .... I am one man fighting a giant with a fly swatter (the pen).
If you are bold enough to jerk the flags with a fringe on them out and
put back the U. S. flag, just make sure you protect you backside.
Before you do this, make sure your constituents in your county are made
aware of this information. Because if you do this you will find the
whole U.S. government against you and for sure they will cut off all money
to your county in the short term, and in the long term, do whatever is
necessary to remove you. I didn't make this information up, it is
the government's own documents and legal definitions taken from their dictionaries.
I wish the hard working Americans in the government that are loyal to an
American Republic could read this, the more that know the truth the better.
James Franklin Montgomery
Footnote #12
"When the 39th Congress assembled on December 5, 1865, the
Senators and Representatives
from the 25 northern States voted to
deny seats in both Houses
of Congress to anyone elected from the
11 southern States.
The full complement of Senators from the 36
States of the Union
was 72, and the full membership in the House
was 240. Since it requires
only a majority vote (see Article I,
Section 5, Constitution
of the United States) to refuse a seat in
Congress, only the 50
Senators and 182 Congressmen from the North
were seated. All of
the 22 Senators and 58 Representatives from
the southern States
were denied seats."
"Joint Resolution No. 48, proposing the Fourteenth
Amendment, was a matter
of great concern to the Congress and to
the people of the Nation.
In order to have this proposed
Amendment submitted
to the 36 States for ratification, it was
necessary that two thirds
of each house concur. A count of noses
showed that only 33
Senators were favorable to the measure, and
33 was a far cry from
two thirds of 72 and lacked one of being
two thirds of the 50
seated Senators."
"While it requires only a majority of votes to refuse a seat
to a Senator, it requires
a two thirds majority to unseat a
member once he is seated.
(see Article I, Section 5, Constitution
of the United States."
"One John P. Stockton was seated on December 5, 1865, as one
of the Senators from
New Jersey. He was outspoken in his
opposition to Joint
Resolution No. 48 proposing the Fourteenth
Amendment. The
leadership in the Senate, not having control of
two ;thirds of the seated
Senators, voted to refuse to seat Mr.
Stockton upon
the ground that he had received only a plurality
and not a majority of
the votes of the New Jersey legislature. It
was the law of New Jersey,
and several other States, that a
plurality vote was sufficient
for election. Besides, the Senator
had already been seated.
Nevertheless, his seat was -refused- and
the 33 favorable votes
thus became the required two thirds of the
49 members of the Senate."
"In the House of Representatives it would require 122 votes
to be two thirds of
the 182 ;members seated. Only 120 voted for
the proposed Amendment,
but because there were 30 abstentions it
was declared to have
been passed by a two thirds vote of the
House." Dyett v. Turner
439 p2d 266 @ 269, 20 U2d 403
Footnote #13
ADDENDUM
I have just discovered the following two endnotes. They completely
confirm in a very final way my research in British Colony parts 1, 2 and
3, and the Informer's research and book "The New History Of America".
If you will study the following papers, the Magna Carta and our Bill of
Rights, and come to an understanding of their similarities. Then
re-read the Charters included in British Colony parts 1 and 2, keeping
in mind the issues I raised, then read the following commentary.
"The two main issues as I see them in British Colony are; one, the financial
obligations of the 1213 Charter En #1, are still in effect, along with
the Charters establishing America. Two, the last sentence of the
1689 Bill of Rights En #2, proves the following:"
"That the Charters of the Colonies could never be overturned by a Declaration
of Independence, or the 1787 treaty, otherwise known as the Constitution,
I'm talking about the real subject matter, financial obligation.
Title for the land was transferred to the states and then ceded by Charter
to the federal government
under Cestui que trust,
but the contracted debt and obligation of the Colonial Charters, and the
1213 Charter could not be negated. Rights could be granted to the
citizens, subjects or combatants, which ever the case may be, but the financial
obligation cannot, nor could not be affected, because it involves parties
not yet born. This why King Charles I said, the 1689 Bill of Rights
would not free the kingdom from the obligation of the 1213 Charter.
This is why the United States Bank was given right of Charter in America.
George Washington had no choice but to succumb to the Rothschild's point
man, Hamilton. Talk about deja vu, I mean does this not sound familiar.
Our Bill of Rights was given to us, to give us the illusion of freedom.
When the tax obligation of the Charters above marched along un-impeded
and un-seen, by Americans and Britons alike. Read the Magna Carta again,
they wanted the Pope's blessing for the 1215 Charter, this same Pope is
the Pope in the 1213 Charter where England and Ireland were given to him.
He could not just give back his land, because of other parties not yet
born. The Pope let the barons presume they were free and gave his
blessing to the 1215 Magna Carta, knowing to do so would in no way lawfully
overturn the grant made to him in the 1213 Charter. Also, it is apparent,
it was recognized as law that you could not even create a Charter, wherein
you declared a previous grant or Charter null in void unless the relevant
parties agreed. How can a Charter be made void if parties to the
Charter will never cease to be born, an heir can always be found.
To prove this, again what did the new king Charles I do, even though the
previous monarchy had come to an end, its obligations did not, this is
why he had to included paragraph III, a clause to protect the other parties
of an earlier Charter."
James Franklin Montgomery,
Sui Juris servant of Jesus Christ
Endnote #1
Britannia: Sources of
British History (1213)
KING JOHN's Concession
of England and Ireland to the Pope
In
the matter of the election and installation of Stephen Langton as Archbishop
of Canterbury, King John, in the words of Pope Innocent III, had by "impious
persecution", tried to "enslave" the entire English Church. As a result,
the pope laid on England an interdict (1208-14), a sort of religious "strike",
wherein no religious service be performed for anyone, guilty or innocent.
When this didn't work, the king, himself, was excommunicated. Caving-in
under that pressure, John wrote a letter of concession to the pope, hoping
to have the interdict and the excommunication lifted (1213). John's concession
which, in effect, made England a
fiefdom of Rome, worked
like a charm. The satisfied pope lifted lifted the yoke he had hung on
the people of England and their king. John, by the grace of God, king of
England, lord of Ireland, duke of Normandy and Aquitaine, count of Anjou,
to all the faithful of Christ who shall look upon this present charter,
greeting.
We
wish it to be known to all of you, through this our charter, furnished
with our seal, that inasmuch as we had offended in many ways God and our
mother the holy church, and in consequence are known to have very much
needed the divine mercy, and can not offer anything worthy for making due
satisfaction to God and to the church unless we humiliate ourselves and
our kingdoms: we, wishing to humiliate ourselves for Him who humiliated
Himself for us unto death, the grace of the Holy Spirit inspiring, not
induced by force or compelled by fear, but of our own good and spontaneous
will and by the common counsel of our barons, do
offer and freely concede
to God and His holy apostles Peter and Paul and to our mother the holy
Roman church, and to our lord pope Innocent and to his Catholic successors,
the whole kingdom of England and the whole kingdom Ireland, with all their
rights and appurtenances, for the remission of our own sins and of those
of our whole race as
well for the living as for the dead; and now receiving and holding them,
as it were a vassal, from God and the Roman church, in the presence of
that prudent man Pandulph, subdeacon and of the household of the lord pope,
we perform and swear fealty for them to him our aforesaid lord pope Innocent,
and his catholic successors
and the Roman church, according to the form appended; and in the presence
of the lord pope, if we shall be able to come before him, we shall do liege
homage to him; binding our successors aid our heirs by our wife forever,
in similar manner to perform fealty and show homage to him who shall be
chief pontiff at that time, and to the Roman church without demur. As a
sign, moreover, of this our own, we will and establish perpetual obligation
and concession we will establish that from the proper and especial revenues
of our aforesaid kingdoms, for all the service and customs which we ought
to render for them, saving in all things the penny of St. Peter, the Roman
church shall receive yearly a thousand marks sterling, namely at the feast
of St. Michael five hundred marks, and at Easter five hundred marks, seven
hundred, namely, for the kingdom of England, and three hundred for the
kingdom of Ireland, saving to us and to our heirs our rights, liberties
and regalia; all of which things, as they have been described above, we
wish to have perpetually valid and firm; and we bind ourselves and our
successors not to act counter to them. And if we or any one of our successors
shall presume to attempt this, whoever he be, unless being duly warned
he come to his kingdom, and this senses, be shall lose his right to the
kingdom, and this charter of our obligation and concession shall always
remain firm.
Endnote #2
Britannia: Sources of
British History
BILL of RIGHTS, 1689
An Act Declaring the
Rights and Liberties of the Subject and
Settling the Succession
of the Crown
Whereas the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons
assembled at Westminster,
lawfully, fully and freely representing
all the estates of the
people of this realm, did upon the
thirteenth day of February
in the year of our Lord one thousand
six hundred eighty-eight
[old style date] present unto their
Majesties, then called
and known by the names and style of
William and Mary, prince
and princess of Orange, being present in
their proper persons,
a certain declaration in writing made by
the said Lords and Commons
in the words following,
Whereas the late King James the Second, by the assistance of
divers evil counsellors,
judges and ministers employed by him,
did endeavour to subvert
and extirpate the Protestant religion
and the laws and liberties
of this kingdom;
By assuming and exercising
a power of dispensing with and
suspending of laws and
the execution of laws without consent of
Parliament;
By committing and prosecuting
divers worthy prelates for humbly
petitioning to be excused
from concurring to the said assumed
power;
By issuing and causing
to be executed a commission under the
great seal for erecting
a court called the Court of Commissioners
for Ecclesiastical Causes;
By levying money for
and to the use of the Crown by pretence of
prerogative for other
time and in other manner than the same was
granted by Parliament;
By raising and keeping
a standing army within this kingdom in
time of peace without
consent of Parliament, and quartering
soldiers contrary to
law;
By causing several good
subjects being Protestants to be disarmed
at the same time when
papists were both armed and employed
contrary to law;
By violating the freedom
of election of members to serve in
Parliament;
By prosecutions in the
Court of King's Bench for matters and
causes cognizable only
in Parliament, and by divers other
arbitrary and illegal
courses;
And whereas of late years
partial corrupt and unqualified persons
have been returned and
served on juries in trials, and
particularly divers
jurors in trials for high treason which were
not freeholders;
And excessive bail hath
been required of persons committed in
criminal cases to elude
the benefit of the laws made for the
liberty of the subjects;
And excessive fines have
been imposed; And illegal and cruel
punishments inflicted;
And several grants and promises made of
fines and forfeitures
before any conviction or judgment against
the persons upon whom
the same were to be levied;
All which are utterly and directly contrary to the known
laws and statutes and
freedom of this realm;
And whereas the said late King James the Second having
abdicated the government
and the throne being thereby vacant, his
Highness the prince
of Orange (whom it hath pleased Almighty God
to make the glorious
instrument of delivering this kingdom from
popery and arbitrary
power) did (by the advice of the Lords
Spiritual and Temporal
and divers principal persons of the
Commons) cause letters
to be written to the Lords Spiritual and
Temporal being Protestants,
and other letters to the several
counties, cities, universities,
boroughs and cinque ports, for
the choosing of such
persons to represent them as were of right
to be sent to Parliament,
to meet and sit at Westminster upon the
two and twentieth day
of January in this year one thousand six
hundred eighty and eight,
in order to such an establishment as
that their religion,
laws and liberties might not again be in
danger of being subverted,
upon which letters elections having
been accordingly made;
And thereupon the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and
Commons, pursuant to
their respective letters and elections,
being now assembled
in a full and free representative of this
nation, taking into
their most serious consideration the best
means for attaining
the ends aforesaid, do in the first place (as
their ancestors in like
case have usually done) for the
vindicating and asserting
their ancient rights and liberties
declare:
That the pretended power
of suspending the laws or the execution
of laws by regal authority
without consent of Parliament is
illegal;
That the pretended power
of dispensing with laws or the execution
of laws by regal authority,
as it hath been assumed and exercised
of late, is illegal;
That the commission for
erecting the late Court of Commissioners
for Ecclesiastical Causes,
and all other commissions and courts
of like nature, are
illegal and pernicious;
That levying money for
or to the use of the Crown by pretence of
prerogative, without
grant of Parliament, for longer time, or in
other manner than the
same is or shall be granted, is illegal;
That it is the right
of the subjects to petition the king, and
all commitments and
prosecutions for such petitioning are
illegal;
That the raising or keeping
a standing army within the kingdom in
time of peace, unless
it be with consent of Parliament, is
against law;
That the subjects which
are Protestants may have arms for their
defence suitable to
their conditions and as allowed by law;
That election of members
of Parliament ought to be free;
That the freedom of speech
and debates or proceedings in
Parliament ought not
to be impeached or questioned in any court
or place out of Parliament;
That excessive bail ought
not to be required, nor excessive fines
imposed, nor cruel and
unusual punishments inflicted;
That jurors ought to
be duly impanelled and returned, and jurors
which pass upon men
in trials for high treason ought to be
freeholders;
That all grants and promises
of fines and forfeitures of
particular persons before
conviction are illegal and void;
And that for redress of all grievances, and for the
amending, strengthening
and preserving of the laws, Parliaments
ought to be held frequently.
And they do claim, demand and insist upon all and singular
the premises as their
undoubted rights and liberties, and that no
declarations, judgments,
doings or proceedings to the prejudice
of the people in any
of the said premises ought in any wise to be
drawn hereafter into
consequence or example; to which demand of
their rights they are
particularly encouraged by the declaration
of his Highness the
prince of Orange as being the only means for
obtaining a full redress
and remedy therein.
Having therefore an entire confidence that his said Highness
the prince of Orange
will perfect the deliverance so far advanced
by him, and will still
preserve them from the violation of their
rights which they have
here asserted, and from all other attempts
upon their religion,
rights and liberties, the said Lords
Spiritual and Temporal
and Commons assembled at Westminster do
resolve that William
and Mary, prince and princess of Orange, be
and be declared king
and queen of England, France and Ireland and
the dominions thereunto
belonging, to hold the crown and royal
dignity of the said
kingdoms and dominions to them, the said
prince and princess,
during their lives and the life of the
survivor to them, and
that the sole and full exercise of the
regal power be only
in and executed by the said prince of Orange
in the names of the
said prince and princess during their joint
lives, and after their
deceases the said crown and royal dignity
of the same kingdoms
and dominions to be to the heirs of the body
of the said princess,
and for default of such issue to the
Princess Anne of Denmark
and the heirs of her body, and for
default of such issue
to the heirs of the body of the said prince
of Orange. And
the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons do
pray the said prince
and princess to accept the same accordingly.
And that the oaths hereafter mentioned be taken by all
persons of whom the
oaths have allegiance and supremacy might be
required by law, instead
of them; and that the said oaths of
allegiance and supremacy
be abrogated.
I, A.B., do sincerely
promise and swear that I will be faithful
and bear true allegiance
to their Majesties King William and
Queen Mary. So
help me God.
I, A.B., do swear that
I do from my heart abhor, detest and
abjure as impious and
heretical this damnable doctrine and
position, that princes
excommunicated or deprived by the Pope or
any authority of the
see of Rome may be deposed or murdered by
their subjects or any
other whatsoever. And I do declare that no
foreign prince, person,
prelate, state or potentate hath or ought
to have any jurisdiction,
power, superiority, pre-eminence or
authority, ecclesiastical
or spiritual, within this realm. So
help me God.
Upon which their said
Majesties did accept the crown and royal
dignity of the kingdoms
of England, France and Ireland, and the
dominions thereunto
belonging, according to the resolution and
desire of the said Lords
and Commons contained in the said
declaration. And
thereupon their Majesties were pleased that the
said Lords Spiritual
and Temporal and Commons, being the two
Houses of Parliament,
should continue to sit, and with their
Majesties' royal concurrence
make effectual provision for the
settlement of the religion,
laws and liberties of this kingdom,
so that the same for
the future might not be in danger again of
being subverted, to
which the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal
and Commons did agree,
and proceed to act accordingly.
Now in pursuance of the premises the said Lords Spiritual
and Temporal and Commons
in Parliament assembled, for the
ratifying, confirming
and establishing the said declaration and
the articles, clauses,
matters and things therein contained by
the force of law made
in due form by authority of Parliament, do
pray that it may be
declared and enacted that all and singular
the rights and liberties
asserted and claimed in the said
declaration are the
true, ancient and indubitable rights and
liberties of the people
of this kingdom, and so shall be
esteemed, allowed, adjudged,
deemed and taken to be; and that all
and every the particulars
aforesaid shall be firmly and strictly
holden and observed
as they are expressed in the said
declaration, and all
officers and ministers whatsoever shall
serve their Majesties
and their successors according to the same
in all time to come.
And the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons,
seriously considering
how it hath pleased Almighty God in his
marvellous providence
and merciful goodness to this nation to
provide and preserve
their said Majesties' royal persons most
happily to reign over
us upon the throne of their ancestors, for
which they render unto
him from the bottom of their hearts their
humblest thanks and
praises, do truly, firmly, assuredly and in
the sincerity of their
hearts think, and do hereby recognize,
acknowledge and declare,
that King James the Second having
abdicated the government,
and their Majesties having accepted the
crown and royal dignity
as aforesaid, their said Majesties did
become, were, are and
of right ought to be by the laws of this
realm our sovereign
liege lord and lady, king and queen of
England, France and
Ireland and the dominions thereunto
belonging, in and to
whose princely persons the royal state,
crown and dignity of
the said realms with all honours, styles,
titles, regalities,
prerogatives, powers, jurisdictions and
authorities to the same
belonging and appertaining are most
fully, rightfully and
entirely invested and incorporated, united
and annexed.
And for preventing all questions and divisions in this realm
by reason of any pretended
titles to the crown, and for
preserving a certainty
in the succession thereof, in and upon
which the unity, peace,
tranquility and safety of this nation
doth under God wholly
consist and depend, the said Lords
Spiritual and Temporal
and Commons do beseech their Majesties
that it may be enacted,
established and declared, that the crown
and regal government
of the said kingdoms and dominions, with all
and singular the premises
thereunto belonging and appertaining,
shall be and continue
to their said Majesties and the survivor of
them during their lives
and the life of the survivor of them, and
that the entire, perfect
and full exercise of the regal power and
government be only in
and executed by his Majesty in the names of
both their Majesties
during their joint lives; and after their
deceases the said crown
and premises shall be and remain to the
heirs of the body of
her Majesty, and for default of such issue
to her Royal Highness
the Princess Anne of Denmark and the heirs
of the body of his said
Majesty; and thereunto the said Lords
Spiritual and Temporal
and Commons do in the name of all the
people aforesaid most
humbly and faithfully submit themselves,
their heirs and posterities
for ever, and do faithfully promise
that they will stand
to, maintain and defend their said
majesties, and also
the limitation and succession of the crown
herein specified and
contained, to the utmost of their powers
with their lives and
estates against all persons whatsoever that
shall attempt anything
to the contrary.
And whereas it hath been found by experience that it is
inconsistent with the
safety and welfare of this Protestant
kingdom to be governed
by a popish prince, or by any king or
queen marrying a papist,
the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal
and Commons do further
pray that it may be enacted, that all and
every person and persons
that is, are or shall be reconciled to
or shall hold communion
with the see or Church of Rome, or shall
profess the popish religion,
or shall marry a papist, shall be
excluded and be for
ever incapable to inherit, possess or enjoy
the crown and government
of this realm and Ireland and the
dominions thereunto
belonging or any part of the same, or to
have, use or exercise
any regal power, authority or jurisdiction
within the same; and
in all and every such case or cases the
people of these realms
shall be and are hereby absolved of their
allegiance; and the
said crown and government shall from time to
time descend to and
be enjoyed by such person or persons being
Protestants as should
have inherited and enjoyed the same in case
the said person or persons
so reconciled, holding communion or
professing or marrying
as aforesaid were naturally dead; and that
every king and queen
of this realm who at any time hereafter
shall come to and succeed
in the imperial crown of this kingdom
shall on the first day
of the meeting of the first Parliament
next after his or her
coming to the crown, sitting in his or her
throne in the House
of Peers in the presence of the Lords and
Commons therein assembled,
or at his or her coronation before
such person or persons
who shall administer the coronation oath
to him or her at the
time of his or her taking the said oath
(which shall first happen),
make, subscribe and audibly repeat
the declaration mentioned
in the statute made in the thirtieth
year of the reign of
King Charles the Second entitled, "An Act
for the more effectual
preserving the king's person and
government by disabling
papists from sitting in either House of
Parliament."
But if it shall happen that such king or queen upon his or
her succession to the
crown of this realm shall be under the age
of twelve years, then
every such king or queen shall make,
subscribe and audibly
repeat the same declaration at his or her
coronation or the first
day of the meeting of the first
Parliament as aforesaid
which shall first happen after such king
or queen shall have
attained the said age of twelve years. All
which their Majesties
are contented and pleased shall be
declared, enacted and
established by authority of this present
Parliament, and shall
stand, remain and be the law of this realm
for ever; and the same
are by their said Majesties, by and with
the advice and consent
of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and
Commons in Parliament
assembled and by the authority of the same,
declared, enacted and
established accordingly.
II. And be it further
declared and enacted by the authority
aforesaid, that from
and after this present session of Parliament
no dispensation by "non
obstante" of or to any statute or any
part thereof shall be
allowed, but that the same shall be held
void and of no effect,
except a dispensation be allowed of in
such statute, and except
in such cases as shall be specially
provided for by one
or more bill or bills to be passed during
this present session
of Parliament.
III. Provided that no
charter or grant or pardon granted before
the three and twentieth day of
October in the year of our Lord
one thousand six hundred eighty-nine
shall be any ways impeached
or invalidated by this Act, but
that the same shall be and remain
of the same force and effect
in law and no other than as if this
Act had never been made.
|