Non-Existant Amendments To The Constitution For The United States of America

Non-Existent Amendments
to the
Constitution for The United States of America
Gordon Warren Epperly
© Copyright 2022 - All Rights Reserved

See “Fair Use Notice Legal Disclaimer”
Digital Copy
Main Document
PDF = “https://tinyurl.com/kutcprdu”
MS Word = “https://tinyurl.com/35wsjeyp”
Supplement Document
PDF = “https://tinyurl.com/3uh6brax”
MS Word = “https://tinyurl.com/msndvema”
Non-Existent Amendments
to the
Constitution for The United States of America
Over the years, the Constitution for our newly formed government of The United States
of America has been transformed with Amendments, some of which are questionable in
their adoption and ratification.
“The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary,
shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of
the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention
for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents
and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures
of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof,
as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress;
Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year one
thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth
Page 1 of 2
clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without
its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.”
[Emphasis added].
U.S. Constitution, Article V
/////
/////
/////
Page 2 of 2
Menu
*
The questionable Amendments are: Pages of Interest (Continued)
 Thirteenth Amendment . . . . . . . Pg. 11  Political Question . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pg. 32
o The Court of “Coleman v. Miller”

 Fourteenth Amendment . . . . . . . Pg. 13 (307 U.S. 433 (1939)) . . . . . . Pg. 44
 Fifteenth Amendment . . . . . . . . Pg. 57
 Emancipation Proclamation . . . . . Pg. 49
 Sixteenth Amendment . . . . . . . . Pg. 59
 Proclamations of Ratifications . . . Pg. 51
 Seventeenth Amendment . . . . . . Pg. 66
 Miscellaneous . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pg. 76
 Nineteenth Amendment . . . . . . . Pg. 74
o An ACT to give the Supreme Court
authority to make and publish rules
in actions at law . . . . . . . . . . Pg. 76
Pages of Interest: o Corporations . . . . . . . . . . . . Pg. 79
o Oaths of Office . . . . . . . . . . . Pg. 85

 Preamble . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pg. 02
 The Jewish Oath
o People of the United States . Pg. 03 of Kol Nidre . . . . . . . . Pg. 86
o Negroes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pg. 03  The Jesuit Extreme Oath

of Induction . . . . . . . . Pg. 88
o Undocumented Immigrants . . Pg. 05
o Women . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pg. 05
o Posterity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pg. 08
 Insurrection (Donald J. Trump) . . Pg. 22
o Federal aid for

State governments . . . . . . . . Pg. 24
o Use of militia and armed forces

to enforce Federal authority . . Pg. 26
o Interference with State

and Federal law . . . . . . . . . . . Pg. 27
Page 1 of 101
Preamble
Introduction
The Preamble sets the stage for the Constitution. It clearly communicates the intentions
of the framers and the purpose of the Document. The Preamble is an introduction to
the highest law of the land; it is not the law. It does not define government powers
nor individual rights.
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union,
establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense,
promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty
to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for
the United States of America."
This Preamble is not found within many publications of the Constitution

for The United States of America.
Statement of Facts
There are two phrases in the Preamble that will be addressed:
First - “We the People of the United States”; and

Second - “. . . . to ourselves and our Posterity.”
Page 2 of 101
People of the United States
The phrase “We the People of the United States” has been addressed by
the “Harvard Law Review” wherein there is an agreement that the phrase
“We the People” refers to “all members of the political community.” [District of Columbia
v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783, 2790 (2008)]. /1 The Court did not
define “the political community.” It is not a self-defining phrase.
Negroes
In regard to the “Negros,” they were captured and imported into the United States for
the purpose of being made “Slaves.” A few were granted the status of “free persons”
by those states that outlawed “Slavery.”
When the Constitution was written for The United States of America, the founding
fathers was required to make provisions in that Document that would preserve
the “Slavery” of “Negroes” which existed in the southern states before those states
would adopt and ratify the Constitution. This provision of the Constitution is found
at Article I, Section 9, Clause 1:
“The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing
shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to
the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may
be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.”
At the time the Constitution for The United States of America was written, the “Slaves”
of the “Negros” were not considered to be a part of “We the People” of the Preamble.
This question was settled by the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of “Dred Scott
1/ “https://tinyurl.com/23ukt6ww”
Page 3 of 101
v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1857),” /2 a “Court Opinion” which stands today
(notwithstanding the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments of the Constitution
for The United States of America):
“The question is simply this: Can a negro, whose ancestors were imported into
this country, and sold as slaves, become a member of the political community
formed and brought into existence by the Constitution of the United States, and
as such become entitled to all of the rights, and privileges, and immunities,
guaranteed by that instrument to the citizen?” [Emphases added]
— Dred Scott, 60 U.S. at 403.
“We think ... that [black people] are not included, and were not intended to
be included, under the word "citizens" in the Constitution, and can therefore
claim none of the rights and privileges which that instrument provides for and
secures to citizens of the United States. On the contrary, they were at that time
[of America's founding] considered as a subordinate and inferior class of beings
who had been subjugated by the dominant race, and, whether emancipated
or not, yet remained subject to their authority, and had no rights or privileges
but such as those who held the power and the Government might choose
to grant them.” [Emphases added]
— Dred Scott, 60 U.S. at 404–05.
/////
/////
/////
2/ “https://tinyurl.com/4bfvp4w8”
Page 4 of 101
Undocumented Immigrants
In regard to Undocumented Immigrants, the Court of “United States v. Portillo-Munoz,

643 F.3d 437 (5th Cir. 2011)” /3 ruled that Undocumented Immigrants are neither
law-abiding citizens, Americans, nor are they members of the “political community” and
as such, they are not of “We the People of the United States.”
Women
In regard to women, under the doctrine of Coverture, a married women was not
included as one of “We the People” of the Preamble for all the rights described therein
that may have belong to the unmarried women have now become the rights of
her husband.
Under traditional English Common Law, an adult unmarried woman was considered to
have the legal status of “feme sole,” while a married woman had the status
of “feme covert.” These terms are “English” spellings of medieval Anglo-Norman
phrases (the modern standard French spellings would be “femme seule” {single woman}
and “femme couverte,” literally {covered woman}).
3/ “https://tinyurl.com/59uhan6z”
Page 5 of 101
The principle of Coverture was described in William Blackstone's “Commentaries on
the Laws of England” /4 in the late 18th century:
“By marriage, the husband and wife are one person in law: that is, the very being
or legal existence of the woman is suspended during the marriage, or at least
is incorporated and consolidated into that of the husband: under whose wing,
protection, and cover, she performs every thing; and is therefore called in our
law-French a feme-covert; is said to be covert-baron, or under the protection
and influence of her husband, her baron, or lord; and her condition during
her marriage is called her coverture. Upon this principle, of a union of person
in husband and wife, depend almost all the legal rights, duties, and disabilities,
that either of them acquire by the marriage. I speak not at present of the rights
of property, but of such as are merely personal. For this reason, a man cannot
grant any thing to his wife, or enter into covenant with her: for the grant would
be to suppose her separate existence; and to covenant with her, would be only
to covenant with himself: and therefore it is also generally true, that all
compacts made between husband and wife, when single, are voided by
the intermarriage.” [Emphasis added].
Further proof that married women were not of the “political community”
of “We the People of the United States,” the founding fathers implied such status within
the writing of the Constitution for The United States of America that all “Offices” of
the Constitution shall be held by the white male Caucasian race (later amended by
the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution to include all male races).
In regard to the U.S. House of Representatives, you will find the word he is used once
in U.S. Constitution Article I, Section 2, Clause 2 and for the U.S. Senate, the word he
is used three (3) times and the word his is used once (1) in U.S. Constitution Article I,
Section 3, Clause 3 and U.S. Constitution Article I, Section 3, Clause 5. The words he
and his are gender specific. (Did you know that the 14th Amendment to
the U.S. Constitution does not grant “Political Rights” of holding “Public Offices of Trust”
to women.).
4/ “https://tinyurl.com/npkys2k5”
Page 6 of 101
It may be argued that the word he (as used in describing the gender of
the House of Representatives) is used only once and therefore the word was never
intended to be gender specific by the founding fathers. This myth is dispelled when
the founding fathers used the word he three (3) times in describing the qualifications of
a U.S. Senator. In Article II of the U.S. Constitution, the founding fathers used
the word he fifteen (15) times, the word his six (6) times, and the word him six (6) times
in describing the qualifications and duties of the “President” of the United States.
With the words he, his, and him being used to describe the qualifications and duties of
the “President,” these pronoun terms must be recognized as being used to define
the words person and natural born citizen of Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of
the Constitution for The United States of America. The Office of “President”
(and “Vice-President”) is limited to the white Caucasian male Citizens of
the United States.
Nowhere within the Constitution for The United States of America (as written in the year
of 1787) will you locate the words female, women, nor the pronouns her, or she.
They simply do not exist.
The Women and Negroes that are holding the Office of the U.S. Congress, the Office of
Vice-President of The United States of America, and as Judicial Officers of the Courts
do so without authority of the Constitution for The United States of America and thus,
they are all “Usurpers” that need to be removed from Office. When these Women
and Negroes hold the “Public Offices of Trust” of the U.S. Government, they have
destroyed the Republic that binds the people to the Laws of the U.S. Congress and to
the Rulings and Opinions of the Courts:
“The deliberations of the Constitutional Convention of 1787 were held

in strict secrecy. Consequently, anxious citizens gathered outside
Page 7 of 101
Independence Hall when the proceedings ended in order to learn what had
been produced behind closed doors. The answer was provided immediately.
A Mrs. Powel of Philadelphia asked Benjamin Franklin, ‘Well, Doctor, what have
we got, a republic or a monarchy?’ With no hesitation whatsoever,
Franklin responded, ‘A republic, if you can keep it.’” [Emphasis added]
Benjamin Franklin /5
Notwithstanding the “Married Women’s Property Acts” /6 as adopted by several states of

the Union, the “laws” of the states have no effect upon the national (“federal”)
government of The United States of America. For these “laws” of the states to take
effect upon the national (“federal”) government, there would have to be
a “Constitutional Amendment” that was approved by the “people” sitting
in “Conventions” of the states.
Notwithstanding the absence of a “Constitutional Amendment,” the “U.S. Congress”

in the year of “1922” took it upon themselves to grant “Women” all the “privileges”
of “Citizenship” independent of their “Husbands” [ see “Cable Act” of 1922 (ch. 411,
42 Stat. 1021, "Married Women's Independent Nationality Act") ]. In theory, the “law”
was designed to grant “Women” their own “national identity;” however, in practice, as it
still retained vestiges of “Coverture,” tying a “Woman's legal identity” to her “Husband's,”
it had to be amended multiple times before it granted “Women citizenship” in their
own right. The “Cable Act” and all its “Legislative Amendments” never
granted “Women” the “Political Rights” of “Suffrage.”
The Constitution for The United States of America was not written as
a “living document” (see “https://tinyurl.com/3ej7p2ts”). What the words of
the U.S. Constitution meant when it was written has the same meaning today.
5/ “https://tinyurl.com/v3fcz6vb”
6/ “https://tinyurl.com/ys95wyez”
Page 8 of 101
Posterity
The phrase “our Posterity” has been defined by the “founding fathers” to be
the future generation of “We the People” that consist of free white [male] persons:
Naturalization Act of 1790 [“1 Stat. 103”]
Page 9 of 101
This understanding of “We the People” and “Posterity” existed until U.S. Senate
Judiciary Chairman, Lyman Trumbull, of Illinois, introduced a “Bill” mandating that
"…. all persons born in the United States," with the exception of American Indians,
were "hereby declared to be citizens of the United States."
The legislation granted all “Negroes” the “full and equal benefit of all laws
and proceedings for the security of person and property as enjoyed
by white citizens, …”. (Enacted as the “Civil Rights Act” of 1866 [“14 Stat. 27-30”].
Reenacted as the “Enforcement Act” of 1870 [“16 Stat. 140”]).
The U.S. Congress of 1866 and 1870 had a fear that these two Enactments of Law
would be “struck down” by the U.S. Supreme Court for exceeding the authority of
the Constitution for The United States of America (especially as the Court had recently
ruled that the Negro population had no authority of the Constitution to be
a member citizen of The United States of America [see Dred Scott v. Sandford,
60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1857)] (supra.)). To resolve the problem, the U.S. Congress
of 1866 proposed the Fourteenth Amendment and the U.S. Congress of 1869 proposed
the Fifteenth Amendment to the Constitution for The United States of America.
These two enactment of Laws (“Civil Rights Act” of 1866, /7 “Enforcement Act”
of 1870 /8) and the Constitutional Amendments of the Fourteenth, Fifteenth,
[and Nineteenth] exceeds the authority of the U.S. Congress for there are no Members
within that Political Body of the U.S. Congress nor of the Legislatures of the states that
have been given authority by the people to alter or amend the “Posterity” clause of
the Preamble to the Constitution for The United States of America
7/ “https://tinyurl.com/265pyzdn”
8/ “https://tinyurl.com/y7mynx7y”
Page 10 of 101
with “Constitutional Amendments” or with “Statutes at Large.” This authority to alter
or amend the “Posterity” clause may only be obtained from the “people” upon
the convening of an Amendment Convention of the states as provided for by Article V of
the Constitution for The United States of America (Supra).
The Courts have read the Preamble as bearing witness to the fact that the Constitution
emanated from the “people” and was not the act of sovereign and independent states.
[McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. (17 U.S.) 316, 403 (1819); /9 Chisholm v. Georgia,
2 Dall. (2 U.S.) 419, 471 (1793); /10 Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee,
1 Wheat. (14 U.S.) 304, 324 (1816) /11], and that it was made for, and is binding only
in The United States of America. [Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901); /12
In re Ross, 140 U.S. 453, 464 (1891) /13].
Thirteenth Amendment
Introduction
The Thirteenth (13th) Amendment to the Constitution for The United States of America
is one (1) of three (3) Amendments that were purportedly ratified by the Legislatures
of three-fourths (¾th) of the states /14 and made a part of the Constitution during
the aftermath of the conclusion of the American Civil War on April 9, 1865.
9/ “https://tinyurl.com/y7mynx7y”
10/ “https://tinyurl.com/3ar9pbwr”
11/ “https://tinyurl.com/3ar9pbwr”
12/ “https://tinyurl.com/sbzy7hcx”
13/ “https://tinyurl.com/fdaj68jr”
Page 11 of 101
The Thirteenth (13th) Amendment was proposed on January 31, 1865 and
purportedly ratified on December 6, 1865. If it wasn’t for the U.S. Congress of
the northern states declaring that several southern states had no lawful governments
leaving those states without authority to participate in the “Debates” on
the Fourteenth (14th) Amendment and the Fifteenth (15th) Amendment, there would be
no objection to the ratification of the Thirteenth (13th) Amendment.
Statement of Facts
If it was not for the history of the Fourteenth (14th) and Fifteenth (15th) Amendments
showing the southern (‘Rebel’) states as having no lawful governments of a state and
showing that those Amendments to have been ratified by “Military Districts” of
the U.S. Congress under the “Reconstruction Acts” of 1867-68, /15 there would be
no objections to the ratification of the Thirteenth (13th) Amendment. But as stated
within the “Reconstruction Acts” of 1867-68, there were no lawful votes as cast by
the southern states for the ratification of the Thirteenth (13th) Amendment for those
states had no lawful governments of a state (so says the northern states sitting as
the U.S. Congress). As a matter of law of Article V of the Constitution
for The United States of America (supra.), there is a preponderance of evidence
showing the Thirteenth (13th) Amendment failed ratification as the U.S. Congress
allowed those who were not Legislators of a state to cast votes of ratification and then
accepting those votes as legitimate votes as cast by the states of the Union.
Comment: The “Statutes at Large” as cited throughout this “Document” may be located and
downloaded from the “U.S. Government” website of “https://uscode.house.gov/statviewer.htm”.
14/ Ratified by twenty-seven (27) of the thirty-six (36) states, including those that had been in rebellion.
15/ “Reconstruction Acts,” (March 2, 1867, “14 Stat. 428-430, c.153”; March 23, 1867, “15 Stat. 2-5, c. 6”;
July 19, 1867, “15 Stat. 14-16, c. 30”; and March 11, 1868, “15 Stat. 41, c. 25”).
Page 12 of 101
Conclusion
For the procedural defects as identified within the “Reconstruction Acts” of 1867-68,
the Thirteenth (13th) Amendment is not an Amendment to the Constitution
for The United States of America and as such, it needs to be purged from
all Constitutions of the states, and the Constitution for The United States of America.
It needs to be purged from all Law Books of the states, and it needs to be purged from
the Statutes at Large. It needs to be purged from all Court Records, and it needs to
be purged from all Text Books.
The precedence found to purge fraudulent Amendments to the Constitution

for The United States of America is with the purging of the “Title of Nobility Amendment”
(known as the Thirteenth (13th) Amendment as ratified on May 1, 1810).
The original Thirteenth (13th) Amendment was “purged” from the History Books and
from the Constitution for The United States of America upon the allegation that it was
not ratified. You may view the history of the “Title of Nobility Amendment” on
the “Internet” at: “https://tinyurl.com/5b7mtpv8.”
Fourteenth Amendment
Introduction
If the Fourteenth (14th) Amendment didn’t exist, would “Women,” “Africans,” or any
others whom are not “White Caucasian Males,” have “Political Rights” to hold
Page 13 of 101
“Public Offices of Trust” of The United States of America? For the most part,
the answer is “NO.”
In regard to the African; this question was answered by the U.S. Supreme Court within
the case of Dred Scott v. Sanford, 19 How, 404, 15 L.Ed. 69 /16 wherein the Court
declared (with reasoning of law) that an African is not a “Citizen” of the United States
(natural born or otherwise). As unpopular as this case may be, it is as valid today as
the day it was written.
We also see that Section Two of the present day Fourteenth (14th) Amendment
declares that only “Male citizens” may cast votes. Bradwell v. State of Illinois,
83 U.S. 130 (1873), /17 was a “United States Supreme Court” case that solidified
the narrow reading of the “Privileges” or “Immunities Clause” of
the Fourteenth (14th) Amendment, and determined that the “right to practice
a profession” was not among these “Privileges.” This case is also notable
for being an early Fourteenth Amendment challenge to “sex discrimination” in
the “United States.” In this case, the United States Supreme Court held that
the “State of Illinois” constitutionally denied “law licenses” to “Women” because
the right to “practice law” was not one of the “privileges” and “immunities” guaranteed
by the Fourteenth (14th) Amendment. The Illinois-Supreme Court affirmed the ruling.
It took three (3) “Amendments” to the “Constitution” for The United States of America
to grant “Woman” and “Africans” a limited privilege of “Suffrage” to cast “votes.”
Please keep in mind that the Seventeenth (17th) Amendment,
the Nineteenth (19th) Amendment, and the Twenty-Fourth (24th) Amendment
addresses only those who are “citizens” as created by
the Fourteenth (14th) Amendment. Without the Fourteenth (14th) Amendment,
those three (3) Constitutional Amendments (“17th,” “19th,” and “24th”) would
16/ see “https://tinyurl.com/yym9xo3d”
17/ see “https://tinyurl.com/4ntnkf8b”
Page 14 of 101
be “null and void” for there would be no “citizens” in existence to “convey”
the “Political Rights” to “vote” (or to hold “Public Offices of Trust”).
Statement of Facts
The following states of the Union have gone on record to declare that
the Fourteenth (14th) Amendment has not been “proposed” nor “ratified” as mandated
by Article V of the Constitution for The United States of America. The “Resolutions” of
the following named states of the Union is an “Official (Judicial) Notice”
upon all Agencies and Branches of the Governments (Federal & states) that
the Fourteenth (14th) Amendment is not an “Amendment” to the Constitution
Question: “Who has the qualifications to state otherwise”?
Here are the facts that proclaims the Fourteenth (14th) Amendment to be existing
in “fraud” and is an “usurpation of powers” of the states and of the people as reserved
under Article X of the Bill of Rights to the Constitution for The United States of America:
1. No Amendment may violate International Law as that Law applies

to “citizens” of other Nations (e.g “Treaty of Ghent” (1815), /18
“Webster - Ashburton Treaty” (1842), /19 and the “Aglo - American Treaty”
of June 7, 1863 /20). No authority may be found within International Law
that authorizes a Nation to invade another for the purpose of “confiscating”
18/ “https://tinyurl.com/e7eb6urb”
19/ “https://tinyurl.com/4u2wf5e9”
20/ “https://tinyurl.com/2mnk4c9r”
Page 15 of 101
its “people” (e.g. Africans) via “force of arms” for the purpose of “compelling”
those “people” to be its “citizens” without their “consent”; and
2. The proposed “Amendment” was not presented to the President

of The United States of America for his “Approbation.”
The ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Hollingsworth v. Virginia,
3 U.S. 378 is merely “dicta” /21 opinions of the Justices. The Justices of
the U.S. Supreme Court have no authority of the Constitution to “alter”
or “amend” the “wording” of any Clause of the U.S. Constitution with
their “personal views,” or “personal opinions.” In declaring that
“Joint Resolutions” proposing “Constitutional Amendments” do not have to
be presented to the President for his “Approbation” is not binding and was made
without authority of the people or of the states sitting in a Convention.
The wording of U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 7, Clause 3 makes it clear

that “All Resolutions” shall be presented to the President. /22 If this was not so,
the “Delegates” of the Constitutional Convention would have expressly included
this assertion of Justices of the Supreme Court as an “exception” within
the Constitutional Clause of U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 7, Clause 3
as it was done with the question of “Adjournment”:
“Every …. resolution … to which the concurrence of the Senate and

House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question
of adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States;
and before the same shall take effect, shall be approved by him …”
[Emphasis added].
21/ Dicta - “Opinions of a judge that do not embody the resolution or determination of the specific case
before the court. Expressions in a court's opinion that go beyond the facts before the court and
therefore are individual views of the author of the opinion and not binding in subsequent cases as
legal precedent.”
22/ With the use of the phrase “Every … resolution,” which appears within “Article I, Clause 3, Section 7”
of the “Constitution” for “The United States of America” said “Clause 3” includes “Joint Resolutions”
proposing “Constitutional Amendments.”
Page 16 of 101
3. A Joint Resolution proposing a Constitutional Amendment may contain
no more than one subject matter. This was not done with
the Fourteenth (14th) Amendment:
“We think amendments to the constitution …. shall be submitted separately,

must be construed to mean amendments which have different objects
and purposes in view. In order to constitute more than one amendment,
the propositions submitted must relate to more than one subject, and have
at least two distinct and separate purposes not dependent upon or
connected with each other . . . .” [Emphasis added].
State v. Timme, /23 54 Wis. 318, 11 N.W. 785, 790
See also the below supporting Cases:
a. Kerby v. Luhrs, /24 36 P.2d 549 (Ariz. 1934);

b. State v. Cooney, /25 70 Mont. 355, 225 P. 1007;
c. State v. Wetz, /26 40 N.D. 299, 168 N.W. 835, 5 A.L.R. 731;
d. Jones v. McClaughry, /27 169 Iowa. 281, 151 N.W. 210;
e. Gottstein v. Lister, /28 88 Wash. 462, 153 P. 595,
Ann. Cas. 1917D 1008;
f. State v. Alderson, /29 49 Mont. 387, 142 P. 210, Ann. Cas. 1916B 39;
g. State v. Jones, /30 106 Miss. 522, 64 So. 241;
23/ URL not located
24/ “https://tinyurl.com/yyrvjwcm”
25/ “https://tinyurl.com/y6tqtyot”
26/ URL not located
27/ URL not located

28/ “https://tinyurl.com/y3rcrtqk”
29/ URL not located
Page 17 of 101
h. People v. Prevost, /31 55 Colo. 199, 134 P. 129, 133;
i. Hammond v. Clark, /32 136 Ga. 313, 71 S.E. 479, 38 L.R.A. (N.S.) 77;
j. Lobaugh v. Cook, /33 127 Iowa 181, 102 N.W. 1121, 1123;
k. People v. Sours, /34 31 Colo. 369, 74 P. 167, 102 Am. St. Rep. 34;
l. Gabbert v. Chicago, /35 R.I. P. Ry. Co., 171 Mo. 84, 70 S.W. 891;
m. State v. Herried, /36 10 S.D. 109, 72 N.W. 93;
n. Winget v. Holm, /37 187 Minn. 78, 244 N.W. 331, 335;
o. McBee v. Brady, /38 15 Idaho 761, 100 P. 97;
p. State v. Powell, /39 77 Miss. 543, 27 So. 927, 931, 48 L.R.A. 652;
q. Mathews v. Turner, /40 212 Iowa 424, 236 N.W. 412, 415.
Many of them merely quote the language of State v. Timme, (supra,) or refer
to it approvingly, but there are a number which go into the question more fully
and elucidate and explain what is meant by propositions which relate to more
than one subject and have at least two distinct and separate purposes
not dependent upon or connected with each other.
30/ URL not located
31/ URL not located
32/ URL not located
33/ URL not located
34/ URL not located
35/ URL not located

36/ URL not located
37/ URL not located
38/ URL not located

39/ URL not located
40/ URL not located
Page 18 of 101
The U.S. Congress submitted to the Legislature of the states the following
matters to be voted upon as if they were one subject of an Amendment to
the Constitution:
a. “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject

to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of
the state wherein they reside.”
Fourteenth (14th) Amendment, Section 1
b. “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges
or immunities of citizens of the United States.”
c. “Nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property,
without due process of law,”
d. “Nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection
of the laws.”
e. “Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according

to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons
in each state, excluding Indians not taxed.”
f. “But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors
for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives
in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members
Page 19 of 101
of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants
of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of
the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation
in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of Representation therein shall
be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall
bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age
in such state.”
g. “No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector

of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military,
under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken
an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States,
or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial
officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall
have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid
or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote
of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.”
h. “The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law,
including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services
in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.
But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt
or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against
the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave;
but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.”
4. The [defacto] U.S. Congress may not compel any state to rescind
its negative ratification vote as cast on a proposed Constitutional Amendment
as was done with the “negative votes” of the southern states as cast on
the Fourteenth (14th) Amendment; and
Page 20 of 101
5. The [defacto] U.S. Congress has no authority to compel any state to surrender
its statehood status and be expelled from the Congress as was done with
the southern states [to obtain a forced fraudulent vote of ratification on
the Fourteenth (14th) Amendment]. What the southern states was not able
to accomplish with a Civil War, the Congress of the northern states was able to
do in obtaining a forced ratification of a Constitutional Amendment. All the states
entered into a Confederation of the Union of November 15, 1778, and thereafter,
with the understanding that the Union shall be perpetual (see wording
of Preamble /41 and Article XIII of the Articles of Confederation /42 as adopted
on March 1, 1781) [see also Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1868) ]; and
6. The [defacto] U.S. Congress was without authority to substitute

the votes of rejection, as cast by the Legislatures of the southern states,
with the votes of ratification (as cast by Legislators of Military Districts /43); and
7. The [defacto] U.S. Congress was without authority to authorize non-citizens

[e.g. “Africans”] of Military Districts to cast votes of ratification on
the Fourteenth (14th) Amendment; and
8. The [defacto] U.S. Congress was without authority to authorize any Legislature
of a state to reverse its vote of rejection as cast upon
the Fourteenth (14th) Amendment (see Coleman v. Miller, 307 U.S. 433,
488-50 (1939) /44); and
41/ “https://tinyurl.com/hw4z5t6w”
42/ “https://tinyurl.com/v8k45fcv”
43/ “https://tinyurl.com/2acj4u2s”
44/ “https://tinyurl.com/usavy66b”
Page 21 of 101
9. The [defacto] U.S. Congress was without authority to issue
forth “Orders” upon an Officer of the Executive Branch of
the Federal Government to proclaim the Fourteenth (14th) Amendment to have
been ratified via “Proclamation.”
The Insurrection Act
The investigation of the “U.S. House Committee on the (January 6, 2021) attack upon
the United States Capitol” is an attempt to hold former “President, Donald J. Trump”
criminally liable to the non-existent crime of “Insurrection.” This investigation
is unconstitutional, null and void.
Summary
“No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President

and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States,
or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of
Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State
legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the
Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion
against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress
may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.”
[Emphasis added].
Fourteenth Amendment, Section 3
 What power does the “ Insurrection Act ” give to the President?

 When can the President use the “ Insurrection Act ”?
 Is the “ Insurrection Act ” constitutional?
Question: Can an identified “Inalienable Right” of “Insurrection” be abolished

by “Constitutional Amendments”?
Page 22 of 101
If we're going to talk about “insurrection,” we had better define it first.
“A rising against civil or political authority; the open and active opposition of
a number of persons to the execution of a law in a city or state. It is equivalent
to sedition, except that sedition expresses a less extensive rising of citizens.
It differs from rebellion, for the latter expresses a revolt, or an attempt
to overthrow the government, to establish a different one or to place the country
under another jurisdiction. It differs from mutiny, as it respects the civil
or political government; whereas a mutiny is an open opposition to law in
the army or navy. Insurrection is however used with such latitude as
to comprehend either sedition or rebellion.” [Emphasis added]
Insurrection Webster 's 1828 Dictionary
It seems only logical that the “Insurrection Act, 18 U.S. Code § 2383” must deal with
a substantial uprising against either the civil or political authority. In other words,
not just a few people, because that would be a riot. Also, it cannot be a rebellion
unless there is an attempt to replace the government. Keep these facts in mind as they
will become important later.
The “Insurrection Act” is found in “Title 10, §§ 251-255” of the “United States Code.”
“Sections 254” and “255” are more administrative aspects of the law.
“Whenever the President considers it necessary to use the militia or

the armed forces under this chapter, he shall, by proclamation, immediately
order the insurgents to disperse and retire peaceably to their abodes within
a limited time.”
10 USC § 254
With the words “considers it necessary,” the “Section 254” is made as a grant
of “discretional authority” that may be taken by the President. It is not a grant
of authority made to any “member” of the “U.S. Congress” or to the “Federal Judiciary.”
Page 23 of 101
This “Section 254” declares the “discretionary action” that may be taken,
which is “limited” to the “ordering” of the “insurgents” to “disperse” and go “home.”
There are no “provisions” within this law that authorizes the “President” to issue
forth “proclamations” upon “insurgents” in absence of the calling forth of the “militia” or
the “armed forces.” There are no “provisions” made within this law that allows
the “President” to call forth the “Capital Police” to put down “domestic violence” (“riots”)
that was made upon the “Capital Building” (as inferred by several members of
the “U.S. House Committee on the attack of the United States Capitol”).
“For purposes of this chapter, the term State includes Guam and
the Virgin Islands.”
10 USC §255
The “Section 255” includes the territories “Guam” and the “Virgin Islands” when referring
to the “states” in this law. Now let's get into the meat of the “Act.”
Federal aid for State governments
“Whenever there is an insurrection in any State against its government,

the President may, upon the request of its legislature or of its governor
if the legislature cannot be convened, call into Federal service such of the militia
of the other States, in the number requested by that State, and use such of
the armed forces, as he considers necessary to suppress the insurrection.”
[Emphases added].
10 USC §251
This is “Congress” making a “law” to exercise the “power” delegated to

the “United States” in “Article IV, Section 4” of the “Constitution,” specifically
the protection from “domestic violence”:
Page 24 of 101
“The United States shall guarantee 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 of the Executive (when the Legislature
cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.”
U.S. Constitution, Article IV, Section 4
The “United States” is required to “guarantee” each “state” a “republican form”

of “government.”
“A commonwealth; a state in which the exercise of the sovereign power is lodged

in representatives elected by the people. In modern usage, it differs from
a democracy or democratic state, in which the people exercise the powers
of sovereignty in person.”
Republic Webster 's 1828 Dictionary
The “Article IV, Section 4” also requires that the “United States” protects each of
the “states” against “invasion” and “domestic violence” only when the “state” asks for it.
Generally, it would be the “state's legislature” who applies to the “United States”
for assistance. If the “legislature” cannot be convened, then the “state's governor”
can apply. Although there were many calling for the “President” to send in the “militia”
to the “states” during the “riots,” no “state legislature” requested the “United States”
do so. Therefore, the “President” did not have legal authority to exercise the provisions
of “10 USC 251.”
However, there's another problem. “Article VI, Section 4” only authorizes

the “United States” to protect a “state” from “invasion” or “domestic violence,”
not “insurrection.” Nowhere does the “Constitution” grant the “federal government”
the authority to protect a “state” against an “insurrection.” While most of us probably
think an “insurrection” would include “domestic violence,” that's not necessarily
Page 25 of 101
the case. Since the “Constitution” does not delegate this “power” to the “United States,”
nor does it prohibit it to the “states,” this “power” remains with the “states.”
[Emphasis added].
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution,

nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to
the people.”
U.S. Constitution Amendment X
So when “Congress” wrote and passed “§251” and then “President Eisenhower”
signed it, they violated the “Constitution.” More about this later.
Use of militia and armed forces to enforce Federal authority
“Whenever the President considers that unlawful obstructions, combinations,

or assemblages, or rebellion against the authority of the United States,
make it impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States in any State by
the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, he may call into Federal service
such of the militia of any State, and use such of the armed forces,
as he considers necessary to enforce those laws or to suppress the rebellion.”
10 USC §252
There were times during the “riots” that the “President” sent in “federal law enforcement”
to protect “federal buildings.” If the “President” deemed it necessary, he could have
used the “militia” and the “armed forces” to protect those “properties,” and enforce
“federal law” under “§252.” Some may be arguing that this would be a violation of
the “Posse Comitatus Act.”
“Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by

the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or
Page 26 of 101
the Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall
be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.”
[Emphasis added].
18 USC 1385 “Posse Comitatus Act”
If the “President” had used the “militia” or the “armed forces” to enforce the “laws” of
the “United States” and if it was done under the “Insurrection Act” of “10 USC §252,” it is
that “Act” of “Congress” that makes the use of the “Army” or the “Air Force” lawful.
Interference with State and Federal law
“The President, by using the militia or the armed forces, or both, or by any
other means, shall take such measures as he considers necessary to suppress,
in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination,
or conspiracy, if it
“(1) so hinders the execution of the laws of that State, and of

the United States within the State, that any part or class of its people
is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in
the Constitution and secured by law, and the constituted authorities
of that State are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege,
or immunity, or to give that protection; or
“(2) opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States
or impedes the course of justice under those laws.
“In any situation covered by clause (1), the State shall be considered to have
denied the equal protection of the laws secured by the Constitution.”
[Emphasis added].
10 USC §253
Page 27 of 101
As we've already seen, the “Constitution” only authorizes the “United States” to protect
the “states” against “invasion” or “domestic violence” when asked by the “state.”
And since the “President” is tasked with enforcing the “laws” of the “United States,”
we recognize that “Congress” can legally established as to when the “President” may
use the “militia” and “armed forces” when requested to do so. We've also
seen “Congress” illegally expand the “powers” of the “United States” to protect
the “states” against “insurrection” in “§251.” Whereas in “§251” the “President” had
the “power” to assist “states” only if they asked for it, now the “Congress” wants him to
be able to send in “armed forces,” based solely upon him deeming it necessary.
This not only exceeds the “powers” delegated to the “United States” by
the “Constitution,” but this law tramples upon the duty of the “United States” to insure
that each “state” has a “republican form” of “government” [see “Article IV, Section 4” of
the “Constitution for The United States of America.”]. How can the "sovereign power” of
a “state” be lodged in “representatives” which the “people” have elected if
an "outside entity" of the “President” of the “United States” has authority to step in
and overrule them?
That's not all. Notice that “Clause 1” in “§253” claims to give the “President”
the authority to step in, not only if “federal laws” cannot be enforced, but “states laws”
as well (if those “laws” protect “rights” as named in the “Constitution”). It is one thing to
use the “armed forces” of the “United States” to enforce “federal laws,”
(including the “Constitution”), but to authorize the “President” to unilaterally “invade”
a “state” against their will is another thing altogether. Even if the “pretext” is that
“state laws” to protect constitutionally “protected rights” are not being enforced, there is
no language in the “Constitution” that delegates that type of “power” to
the “United States.”
Page 28 of 101
Conclusion
You may have noticed that a distinction has been made between “insurrection”
and “domestic violence.” The reason is not only simple, but extremely important if we're
to remain a “free republic” of “states.” Let us view “Article I, Section 1” of
the “Constitution” for the “State of Tennessee”:
“That all power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded
on their authority, and instituted for their peace, safety, and happiness;
for the advancement of those ends they have at all times, an unalienable
[Inalienable] and indefeasible right to alter, reform, or abolish the government
in such manner as they may think proper.” [Emphasis added].
“Constitution” of the “State of Tennessee,” “Article I, Section 1”
While not every “state” includes similar language in their “Constitutions,” most of
them do. They state that “all power is inherent in the people,” not in the “Officials”
of their “state” governments, and certainly not in the government of
the “United States.” They also declare that it is “the right of the people to alter or
abolish their government and replace it with another.” The “people” have
an “inalienable right” to rise up against their “civil” or “political” authority to “abolish
their government” and to “establish a new one” as they see fit. In other words,
the “Constitutions” of most of our “states” protects the “right” to
a peaceful “insurrection.” This is an “inalienable right” our “Founding Fathers” not only
recognized, but exercised when they declared their independence from “Great Britain.”
“That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends,

it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute
new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing
its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to affect their Safety
and Happiness.” [Emphasis added].
Declaration of Independence
Page 29 of 101
Sadly, this is a “right” our “Officials” in “Washington, D.C.” have forgotten. I applaud
any “law” that protects the “rights” of the “people,” but not at the expense of our
other “rights,” or our “right” to live in “free” and “sovereign states.”
Even worse is what would happen should the “President” ever enact “§253” of
the “Insurrection Act.” This would in effect be an act of “civil war” against the “states,”
a breaking of the “Compact” that is the “Constitution.” It would be the final act
of the “destruction” of the “Republic.” The question is, “will the people keep their
elected Officials in check to prevent such an action or not?” Will we fight the “war”
against “tyranny” while we can still do it peacefully? Or are we going to wait until
the “fight” must be done with “arms” on the “battlefield”?
No “Public Official” of the “United States,” sitting either as a “Member” of

the “U.S. Congress” or as a “Member” of the “Legislature” of any “state” of the “Union,”
has any “authority” to “criminalize” an “Inalienable Right,” either by an “enactment”
of “Laws” or by “ratification” of “Constitutional Amendments.”
The “Perpetual Union Clause” of “Article XIII” of the November 15, 1778
“Articles of Confederation” declaring that the “Union” of “states” is to be “Perpetual” and
the “states” shall abide to the “determination” of the “United States” in “Congress,”
converts the exercise of an “inalienable right” of “insurrection” into a “crime,” the right
to succeed from a “Union” of “states” (“United States”) that exercise abusive powers or
no longer represents the people.
Notwithstanding the “Court Opinion” of “Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase”

in the “U.S. Supreme Court” case of “Texas v. White,” /45 the “Perpetual Union Clauses”
as found in the “Preamble” and “Article XIII” of the “Articles of Confederation” of 1778
45/ “Texas v. White, 74 U.S. (7 Wall.) 700 (1869)”
Page 30 of 101
and the “Insurrections Clauses” as found within “Article I, Section 8, Clause 15” of
the “Constitution” for “The United States of America” and “Section 3” of
the “Fourteenth Amendment,” are “repugnant” to the “Inalienable Rights Clauses” as
found within the year 1774 “Declaration of Rights,” and within the July 4th, 1776
“Declaration of Independence.” Such “Perpetual Union Clauses” binds the people
to “governments” that may support “trespasses” upon nature’s “God”
given “Inalienable Rights” of “Life,” “Liberty,” and their “Pursuit of Happiness.”
It appears that “John Dickinson,” representing “Pennsylvania,” is the author of

the “Perpetual Union Clause” of “Article XIII” of the 1776 “Articles of Confederation” and
the author of the “Insurrection Clause” of “Article I, Section 8, Clause 15” of
the “Constitution” for “The United States of America.” We should take notice
that “Dickinson” prepared the first draft of the “Articles of Confederation” after others,
over his objection, had ratified the “Declaration of Independence”
(holding that the ratification would lead to violence).
We should also take notice that the “Declaration of Rights” and

the “Declaration of Independence” were not the first “Documents”
to address “Insurrection” for we find that in the year of “1680,” the “General Assembly
of Virginia” passed "An act for preventing Negroes Insurrections," which prohibits slaves
from arming themselves "with any club, staffe, gun, sword or any other weapon."
In order to prevent public gatherings, the law prohibits slaves from leaving
their masters' property without a certificate. /46
The “English Philosopher, John Locke,” wrote in his “Two Treatises of Government” that
all people have natural rights.
The “Despotic Political Parties,” as we have today in the “Democrat Political Party,”
converts the exercise of “Inalienable Rights,” (as protected by “Republican Form
46/ see “Slave Law in Colonial Virginia: A Timeline - SHSU”
Page 31 of 101
of Governments”) into “crimes” of “Sedition” or “Insurrection” especially as having
the “Tally Counts” and the casting of legitimate “Election Ballots” being invaded.
The wording of the October 14th, 1774 “Declaration of Rights,” and the wording of
the “Declaration of Independence” of July 4th, 1776 proclaims that
the “Perpetual Union Clauses,” and their “Sedition / Insurrection Laws,”
to be “unconstitutional” null and void ab initio. Our “Inalienable Rights” may not
be “surrendered,” “given away,” nor “contracted away,” /47 for they are the “property”
of our “Creator,” the “I Am That I Am.” /48
10 U.S. Code § 251 to 254b - Renumbered §§ 240a to 240f
Political Question
1. The Federal Courts have proclaimed that the question of ratification

of Constitutional Amendments is a “Political Question” to the Courts for there is
a “textually demonstrable commitment to another branch.” The leading
Supreme Court case in the area of the “Political Question” doctrine
is Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 217 (1962). /49
In the Baker opinion, the Court outlined “six (6) characteristics” [p]rominent on
the surface of any case held to involve a “Political Question,” which include:
a. a textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue to

a coordinate political department; or
b. a lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards

for resolving it; or
47/ see “https://tinyurl.com/vskd4v5r”

48/ The name of God (KJV “Exodus 3:14”).
49/ “https://tinyurl.com/y3nqk2cq”
Page 32 of 101
c. the impossibility of deciding without an initial policy determination of
a kind clearly for non-judicial discretion; or
d. the impossibility of a court's undertaking independent resolution

without expressing lack of the respect due coordinate branches
of government; or
e. an unusual need for unquestioning adherence to a political decision

already made; or
f. the potentiality of embarrassment from multifarious pronouncements

by various departments on one question.
The first factor — a textually demonstrable commitment to another branch —

is the classical view that the Court must decide all cases and issues before
it unless, as a matter of constitutional interpretation, the Constitution, itself,
has committed the “determination of the issue to another branch of government”
[or to the states of the Union.].
In regard to Constitutional Amendments, only the states (in and through

their Legislators) have been granted the “committed determination of the issue”
by the U.S. Constitution to review the validity of “Constitutional Amendments,”
and via Amendatory Conventions, /50 to make corrections; not the U.S. Congress.
[see wording of Article V of the Constitution for The United States
of America (supra.)].
The members of the U.S. Congress have been delegated only one power
and duty in amending our nation’s Constitution. That power is with
the U.S. Congress in proposing Constitutional Amendments and the duty is for
the U.S. Congress to set forth the procedure for ratification of
those proposed Amendments. The procedure to be used is that the Amendment
50/ “https://tinyurl.com/3pkdc6ur”
Page 33 of 101
shall be ratified either by the Legislatures of three fourths (¾th) of
the several states, or in the alternative, by Conventions in three fourths (¾th)
thereof. Nowhere may it be found within the Constitution for The United States
of America that the members of the U.S. Congress have been given authority
to determine the qualifications of the states and the legitimacy of the votes of
those states as may have been casted for “Rejection” or casted for “Ratification.”
As it is the original “thirteen (13) states” of 1781 /51 that have “reserved”
their “powers” to “alter” or make “changes” to the Constitution
for The United States of America as expressed under Article X of
the Bill of Rights and under Article V of the Constitution for The United States
of America; it is the “states” of the “Union” that have the “reserved authority” to
the “committed determination of the issue” to review and rule upon the legitimacy
of “ratification” of Constitutional Amendments.
The “Legislatures” of the states have spoken and they have declared that
the Fourteenth (14th) Amendment was never “proposed” nor “ratified”
in accordance with Article V of the Constitution for The United States of America:
A. The Louisiana Legislature by H. Con. Res. 208 of June 13, 1967:
“A concurrent resolution to expose the unconstitutionality of

the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States; to interpose
the sovereignty of the State of Louisiana against the execution
of said amendment in this State; to memorialize the Congress
of the United States to Repeal its Joint Resolution of July 28, 1868,
declaring that said amendment had been ratified; and to provide for
the distribution of certified copies of this resolution. [Emphasis added]
“Whereas the purported 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution

was never lawfully adopted in accordance with the requirements
51/ Year 1781 is the year that the original “thirteen (13) states” created the government
of “The United States of America.” (see “Article I” of the “Articles of Confederation”).
Page 34 of 101
of the United States Constitution because eleven states of the Union
were deprived of their equal suffrage in the Senate in violation of Article V,
when eleven southern states, including Louisiana, were excluded
from deliberation and decision in the adoption of the Joint Resolution
proposing said 14th Amendment; said Resolution was not presented
to the President of the United States in order that the same should
take effect, as required by Article I, Section 7; the proposed Amendment
was not ratified by three fourths of the states, but to the contrary,
fifteen states of the then thirty seven states of the Union rejected
the proposed 14th Amendment between the dates of its submission
to the states by the Secretary of State on June 16, 1866,
and March 24, 1868, thereby nullifying said Resolution and making
it impossible for ratification by the constitutionally required three fourths
of such states; said southern which were denied their equal suffrage
in the Senate had been recognized by proclamations of the President
of the United States to have duly constituted governments with all
the powers which belong to free states of the Union, and the Legislatures
of seven of said southern states had ratified the 13th Amendment which
would have failed of ratification but for the ratification of said
seven southern states; and, [Emphasis added],
“Whereas the Reconstruction Acts of Congress unlawfully overthrew

their existing governments, removed their lawfully constituted legislatures
by military force and replaced them with rump legislatures which carried
out military orders and pretended to ratify the 14th Amendment; and,
[Emphasis added].
“Whereas in spite of the fact that the Secretary of State

in his first proclamation, of July 20, 1868, expressed doubt as to whether
three fourths of the required states had ratified the 14th Amendment,
Congress nevertheless adopted a resolution on July 28, 1868, unlawfully
declaring that three fourths of the states had ratified the 14th Amendment
and directed the Secretary of State to so proclaim, said Joint Resolution
of Congress and the resulting proclamation of the Secretary of State
included the purported ratifications of the military enforced rump
legislatures of ten southern states whose lawful legislatures had
previously rejected the said 14th Amendment, and also included purported
ratifications by the legislatures of the States of Ohio, and New Jersey
although they had withdrawn their legislative ratifications several months
previously, all of which proves absolutely that said 14th Amendment was
Page 35 of 101
not adopted in accordance with the mandatory constitutional requirements
set forth in Article V of the Constitution and therefore the Constitution
strikes with nullity the purported 14th Amendment. [Emphasis added].
“Now therefore be it resolved by the Legislature of Louisiana,

the House of Representatives and the Senate concurring:
1) “That the Legislature go on record as exposing

the unconstitutionality of the 14 Amendment, and interposes
th
the sovereignty of the State of Louisiana against the execution

of said 14th Amendment against the State of Louisiana
and its people; [Emphasis added].
2) “That the Legislature of Louisiana opposes the use of the invalid

14th Amendment by the Federal Courts to impose further unlawful
edicts and hardships on its people; [Emphasis added].
3) “That the Congress of the United States be memorialized

by this Legislature to Repeal its unlawful Joint Resolution
of July 28, 1868, declaring that three fourths of the states
had ratified the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution.
[Emphasis added].
4) “That the Legislatures of the other states of the Union

be memorialized to give serious study and consideration to take
similar action against the validity of the 14th Amendment and
to uphold and support the Constitution of the United States which
strikes said 14th Amendment with nullity;
5) “That copies of this Resolution, duly certified, together with a copy

of the treatise on “The Unconstitutionality of the 14th Amendment”
by Judge L. H. Perez, be forwarded to the Governors
and Secretaries of State of each state in the Union,
and to the Secretaries of the United States Senate
and House of Congress, and to the Louisiana
Congressional Delegation, a copy hereof to be published
in the Congressional Record.”
(see “https://tinyurl.com/z3akrxp”)
Page 36 of 101
B. The New Jersey Legislature by Resolution of March 27, 1868:
1. “The said proposed amendment not having yet received the assent
of the three fourths of the states, which is necessary to make it valid,
the natural and constitutional right of this state to withdraw its assent
is undeniable ... [Emphasis added]
2. “That it being necessary by the Constitution that every amendment

to the same should be proposed by two thirds of both houses
of Congress, the authors of said proposition, for the purpose
of securing the assent of the requisite majority, determined to,
and did, exclude from the said two houses eighty Representatives
from eleven states of the union, upon the pretense that there were
no such states in the Union; but, finding that two thirds
of the remainder of the said houses could not be brought to assent
to the said proposition, they deliberately formed and carried out
the design of mutilating the integrity of the United States Senate,
and without any pretext or justification, other than the possession
of the power, without the right, and in the palpable violation
of the constitution, ejected a member of their own body,
representing this state, and thus practically denied to New Jersey
its equal suffrage in the senate, and thereby nominally secured
the vote of two thirds of the said houses. …. [Emphasis added]
3. “Be and the same is hereby rescinded, and the consent on behalf
of the state of New Jersey to ratify the proposed
Fourteenth (14th) Amendment to the constitution of
the United States, is hereby withdrawn.” [Emphasis added]
(see “https://tinyurl.com/y2cs4grn”)
C. The Georgia Legislature, by Resolution on November 9, 1866:
1. “Since the reorganization of the State government, Georgia has

elected Senators and Representatives. So has every other State.
They have been arbitrarily refused admission to their seats, not on
Page 37 of 101
the ground that the qualifications of the members elected did not
conform to the fourth paragraph, second section, first Article of
the Constitution, but because their right of Representation was denied
by a portion of the States having equal but not greater rights
than themselves. They have in fact been forcibly excluded;
and, inasmuch as all legislative power granted by the States to
the Congress is defined, and this power of exclusion is not among
the powers expressly or by implication, the assemblage, at the capitol,
of Representatives from a portion of the States, to the exclusion of
the Representatives of another portion, cannot be a constitutional
Congress, when the Representation of each State forms an integral
part of the whole. [Emphases added].
2. “This amendment is tendered to Georgia for ratification, under that

power in the Constitution which authorizes two thirds of the Congress
to propose amendments. We have endeavored to establish
that Georgia had a right, in the first place, as a part of the Congress,
to act upon the question, ‘Shall these amendments be proposed?'
Every other excluded State had the same right. [Emphases added].
3. “The first constitutional privilege has been arbitrarily denied.

Had these amendments been submitted to a constitutional Congress,
they would never have been proposed to the States. Two thirds of
the whole Congress never would have proposed to eleven States
voluntarily to reduce their political power in the Union, and at
the same time, disfranchise the larger portion of the intellect,
integrity, and patriotism of eleven co-equal States.'' [Emphasis added].
(see “https://tinyurl.com/y3r7ebgj”)
(see also “https://tinyurl.com/y2um6o3p”)
(see also “https://tinyurl.com/829ffah”)
D. The Florida Legislature, by Resolution of December 5, 1866:
1. “Let this alteration be made in the organic system and some new
and more startling demands may or may not be required by
the predominant party previous to allowing the ten States
now unlawfully and unconstitutionally deprived of their right
Page 38 of 101
of Representation is guaranteed by the Constitution of this country
and there is no act, not even that of rebellion, can deprive them.”
[Emphasis added].
(see also “https://tinyurl.com/y68kr7aj”)
E. The South Carolina Legislature by Resolution of November 27, 1866:
“Eleven of the Southern states, including South Carolina, are deprived

of their Representation in Congress. Although their Senators
and Representatives have been duly elected and have presented
themselves for the purpose of taking their seats, their credentials have,
in most instances, been laid upon the table without being read, or have
been referred to a committee, who have failed to make any report
on the subject. In short, Congress has refused to exercise
its Constitutional functions, and decide either upon the election,
the return, or the qualification of these selected by the States and people
to Represent us. Some of the Senators and Representatives from
the Southern states were prepared to take the test oath, but even these
have been persistently ignored, and kept out of the seats to which they
were entitled under the Constitution and laws.
“Hence this amendment has not been proposed by `two thirds

of both Houses' of a legally constituted Congress, and is not,
Constitutionally or legitimately, before a single Legislature for ratification.''
[Emphasis added].
(see also “https://tinyurl.com/y68kr7aj”)
F. The North Carolina Legislature protested by Resolution

of December 6, 1866:
“The Federal Constitution declares, in substance, that Congress shall

consist of a House of Representative, composed of members apportioned
among the respective States in the ratio of their population and of
a Senate, composed of two members from each State. And in the Article
which concerns Amendments, it is expressly provided that ‘no State,
without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.'
Page 39 of 101
The contemplated Amendment was not proposed to the States by
a Congress thus constituted. At the time of its adoption, the eleven
seceding States were deprived of Representation both in the Senate
and House, although they all, except the State of Texas, had Senators
and Representatives duly elected and claiming their privileges under
the Constitution. In consequence of this, these States had no voice on
the important question of proposing the Amendment. Had they been
allowed to give their votes, the proposition would doubtless have failed
to command the required two thirds majority.” [Emphasis added].
(see also “https://tinyurl.com/y5b2dhxh”)
G. The “Resolution of the Legislature of Oregon to withdraw its assent

to the proposed fourteenth Constitutional Amendment.”
“JOINT RESOLUTIONS rescinding resolution passed

September 19, 1866, relative to amending the Constitution of
the United States, and withdrawing the assent of the State of Oregon to
the proposed 14th Constitutional Amendment.
“. . . . .
“And whereas the newly constituted and newly established bodies,

avowing themselves to be, and acting as the legislatures respectively of
the States of Arkansas, Florida, North Carolina, Louisiana,
South Carolina, Alabama, and Georgia, were created by
a military despotism against the will of the legal voters of the said States,
under the reconstruction acts (so called) of Congress, which are
usurpations, unconstitutional, revolutionary, and void; and consequently
the acts of such bodies cannot legally ratify the said proposed
Constitutional Amendment for the States which they pretend
to Represent, nor affect the rights of the other States of the Union; ….
“And whereas on the 6th day of October, 1866, the House

of Representatives of this State adopted a resolution declaring that
the action of that body in ratifying the said proposed
Constitutional Amendment did not express the will of the said house
as it then stood, after being purged of its illegal members: Therefore,
Page 40 of 101
“Be it resolved by the legislature assembly of the State of Oregon,
That the above recited resolution adopted by the legislature assembly
on the 19th day of September, 1866, by fraud, be, and the same
is hereby rescinded, and the ratification on behalf of the State of Oregon
of the above recited proposed amendment to the Constitution of
the United States is hereby withdrawn and refused. …”
[Emphases added].
(see “https://tinyurl.com/y6mf6tdl”).
Further “Declarations” to the “Illegitimacy” of the “proposal” and “rejection”

of the Fourteenth (14th) Amendment may be found within the “House”
and “Senate Journals” of the “states” that cast “votes of rejection” on
the “Amendment”:
1) Texas rejected the 14th Amendment on October 27, 1866.

[House Journal 1866, Pgs. 578-584 /52--Senate Journal 1866, Pg. 471 /53].
2) Georgia rejected the 14th Amendment on November 9, 1866.

[House Journal 1866, Pg. 68 /54--Senate Journal 1866, Pg. 72 /55].
3) Florida rejected the 14th Amendment on December 6, 1866.

4) Alabama rejected the 14th Amendment on December 7, 1866.

52/ “https://tinyurl.com/yxesducx”
53/ “https://tinyurl.com/y2zxn5bl”
54/ “https://tinyurl.com/y3r7ebgj”
55/ “https://tinyurl.com/y2um6o3p”
56/ “https://tinyurl.com/y68kr7aj”
57/ “https://tinyurl.com/y3qod8kz”
Page 41 of 101
5) Arkansas rejected the 14th Amendment on December 17, 1866.
[House Journal 1866-67, Pg. 183 /60--Senate Journal 1866-67,
Pg. 138 /61].
6) North Carolina rejected the 14th Amendment on December 17, 1866.

7) Virginia rejected the 14th Amendment on January 9, 1867.

[House Journal 1866-67, Pg. 108 /64--Senate Journal 1866-67,
Pg. 101 /65].
8) Louisiana rejected the 14th Amendment on February 6, 1867.

[McPherson, Reconstruction, Pg. 194 /66--Annual Encyclopedia,
Pg. 452 /67]. [see also Joint Resolution No. 4, House Journal 1867,
Pg. 9 /68].
9) Delaware rejected the 14th Amendment on February 7, 1867.

58/ “https://tinyurl.com/y35tgl6w”
59/ “https://tinyurl.com/yy9etuys”
60/ “https://tinyurl.com/y692xtjx”
61/ “https://tinyurl.com/y56dgf2n”
62/ “https://tinyurl.com/y5anu6j4”
63/ “https://tinyurl.com/y5b2dhxh”
64/ “https://tinyurl.com/yymcsajk”
65/ “https://tinyurl.com/y2v7hy8e”
66/ URL not located
67/ URL not located
68/ “https://tinyurl.com/y6nxf6ge”
69/ “https://tinyurl.com/y4c2vlse”
70/ “https://tinyurl.com/y2bqfsff”
Page 42 of 101
10) South Carolina rejected the 14th Amendment on December 20, 1866.
[House Journal 1866, Pg. 284 71--Senate Journal 1866, Pg. 230 /72].
11) Kentucky rejected the 14th Amendment on January 8, 1867.

12) Maryland rejected the 14th Amendment on March 23, 1867.

13) Mississippi rejected the 14th Amendment on January 31, 1867.

14) New Jersey rejected the 14th Amendment on March 24, 1868.
[Minutes of the Assembly 1868, Pg. 743 /79
[see also Minutes of the Assembly, Pgs. 1225-1231 /80

--Senate Journal 1868, Pg. 356 /81].
15) Ohio rejected the 14th Amendment on January 15, 1868.

[House Journal 1868, Pgs. 44-50 /82--Senate Journal 1868,
Pgs. 22-38 /83].
71/ “https://tinyurl.com/y23xqcx5”
72/ “https://tinyurl.com/y52pu3js”
73/ “https://tinyurl.com/y4pggb53”
74/ “https://tinyurl.com/y47zw4kr”
75/ “https://tinyurl.com/y34lx3yg”
76/ “https://tinyurl.com/yxp9l3pt”
77/ “https://tinyurl.com/y3kbj2wp”
78/ “https://tinyurl.com/y3jpbfbs”
79/ URL not located
80/ “https://tinyurl.com/yyxpqv9k”
81/ “https://tinyurl.com/y4rpujrc”
82/ “https://tinyurl.com/y5jer3jp”
Page 43 of 101
You may view the true “Photocopies” of the above “House”
and “Senate Journals” on the “Internet” at: “https://tinyurl.com/7tt52hv”.
Please take notice that the case of Baker v. Carr (1962) is repugnant
to the case of Hollingsworth v. Virginia, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 378 (1798) wherein
the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that it had jurisdictional authority to determine
questions involving the proposal and ratification of Constitutional Amendments.
The Court of “Coleman v. Miller” (307 U.S. 433 (1939)) /84
In June, 1924, the “Congress” proposed an “Amendment” to the “Constitution,”

known as the “Child Labor Amendment” and the “Court” of “Coleman v. Miller”
was asked to determine if a “Lieutenant Governor,” sitting as
the “Presiding Officer” of the “Senate,” had authority to cast
the “tie breaking vote” in favor of ratification of the “Amendment.”
“Chief Justice Hughes,” in delivering the “Opinion” of the “Court,”

cited several instances of what the “Court” considered to be “Political Questions,”
one of which was the [purported] ratification of the “Fourteenth Amendment”:
“… the political departments of the Government dealt with the effect

both of previous rejection and of attempted withdrawal and determined
that both were ineffectual in the presence of an actual ratification.
While there were special circumstances, because of the action of
the Congress in relation to the governments of the rejecting States
83/ “https://tinyurl.com/yyd4lczb”
84/ “https://tinyurl.com/nm9cmsfv”
Page 44 of 101
(North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia), these circumstances
were not recited in proclaiming ratification and the previous action taken
in these States was set forth in the proclamation as actual previous
rejections by the respective legislatures. This decision by the political
departments of the Government as to the validity of the adoption
of the Fourteenth Amendment has been accepted.
“We think that in accordance with this historic precedent the question of
the efficacy of ratifications by state legislatures, in the light of previous
rejection or attempted withdrawal, should be regarded as
a political question pertaining to the political departments,
with the ultimate authority in the Congress in the exercise of
its control over the promulgation of the adoption of the amendment.”
[Emphasis added].
Coleman v. Miller, 307 U.S. 433, 449-450
This is a wild unsubstantiated statement coming from those who are supposed
to be the learned “Masters of Law” of our Nation’s “Courts.”
Notwithstanding the “Opinion” of “Chief Justice Hughes,” the “Statutes at Large”

declares otherwise. The “U.S. Congress” has gone on record that there were
no legitimate “states” of the “Rebel South” in existence at the time those “states”
supposedly cast “votes of ratification” on the “Fourteenth Amendment”:
 THIRTY-NINTH CONGRESS, Sess. II, Ch. 153 /85 “An Act to provide for
the more efficient Government of the Rebel States.”
 FORTIETH CONGRESS, Sess. II, Ch. 70 /86 “That each of the States
of North Carolina, South Carolina, Louisiana, Georgia, Alabama,
and Florida, shall be entitled and admitted to representation in Congress
as a State of the Union.”
85/ “https://tinyurl.com/yj8yjbfp”
86/ “https://tinyurl.com/7vzw8vs4”
Page 45 of 101
 FORTY-FIRST CONGRESS, Sess. II, Ch. 19 /87 “An Act to admit
the State of Mississippi to representation in the Congress of
the United States.”
 FORTIETH CONGRESS, Sess. II, Ch. 69 /88 “An Act to admit

the State of Arkansas to Representation in Congress.”

the State of Texas to Representation to the Congress of

the State of Virginia to Representation in the Congress of
 U.S. Congress Joint Resolution No. 58 /91 “A Resolution excluding from

the Electoral College votes of States lately in Rebellion, which shall have
not been reorganized.”
 Senate Mis. Doc. No. 15 /92 “Resolved, That the Committee on

the Judiciary be instructed to report a bill abrogating the unauthorized
and illegal State governments now existing in . . .”
 U.S. Senate Resolution of December 5, 1866 /93 “Resolution declaring

the true principles of reconstruction; the jurisdiction of Congress over
the whole subject; the illegality of existing governments in the rebel States,
and the exclusion of such States, with such illegal governments,
87/ “https://tinyurl.com/ra3eshuv”
88/ “https://tinyurl.com/dmtzpb4n”
89/ “https://tinyurl.com/6cyvxurz”
90/ “https://tinyurl.com/p6s9hn8w”
91/ “https://tinyurl.com/y22dthj8”
92/ “https://tinyurl.com/se6c9wk2”
93/ “https://tinyurl.com/9yfdftp8”
Page 46 of 101
from representation in Congress, and from voting on
constitutional amendments.”
Chief Justice “Hughes” saw only what he wanted to see. If he took the time
to read all the “Statutes at Large” which were involved in the ratification of
the “Fourteenth Amendment,” he would have discovered within the wording
of “Sec. 6” of “THIRTY-NINTH CONGRESS, Sess. II, Ch. 153”
that the “ratification votes,” as cast upon the “Amendment,”
were cast by “Provisional Governments” of “Military Districts” before
those “Provisional Governments” were admitted into the “Union” as “states”
by law of the “U.S. Congress”:
“Sec. 6. And be it further enacted, That, until the people of said rebel
States shall be by law admitted to representation in the Congress
of the United States, any civil governments which may exist therein shall
be deemed provisional only, and in all respects subject to the paramount
authority of the United States at any time to abolish, modify, control,
or supersede the same; . . .”
THIRTY-NINTH CONGRESS, Sess. II, Ch. 153, Sect. 6;

14 Stat. 429.
And the “law(s)” spoken of are the “Statutes at Large” as listed above admitting
the “states” [“States”] to representation in the “U.S. Congress” which states
in part:
“Whereas the people of North Carolina, South Carolina, Louisiana,

Georgia, Alabama, and Florida have, in pursuance of the provisions of
an act entitled “An act for the more efficient government of
the rebel States,” passed March second, eighteen hundred
and sixty - seven, and the acts supplementary thereto,
framed constitutions of State governments which are republican and
have adopted said constitutions by large majorities of the votes cast at
the elections held for the ratification or rejection of the same: Therefore,
Page 47 of 101
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled, That each of
the States [“Military Districts”] of North Carolina, South Carolina,
Louisiana, Georgia, Alabama, and Florida, shall be entitled and admitted
to representation in Congress as a State of the Union when
the legislature of such State [“Military Districts”] shall have duly ratified
the amendment to the Constitution of the United States proposed by
the Thirty - ninth Congress, and known as article fourteen, ….”
[Emphasis added].
FORTIETH CONGRESS, Sess. II, Ch. 70;
With the phrase: “shall be entitled and admitted to representation in Congress as

a State of the Union when the legislature of such State shall have duly ratified
the amendment to the Constitution of the United States” is a statement used by
the “U.S. Congress” to declare that it is the “Provisional Governments”
of [“Military Districts”] that are to cast “votes of ratification” on
the “Fourteenth Amendment,” and even then, not as a voluntary action of
the “Legislature” of those “Military Districts.”
If “North Carolina,” “South Carolina,” “Louisiana,” “Georgia,” “Alabama,”

and “Florida” have the lawful status of being a “state” [“State”] of the “Union”
under this “Statute at Large” of “FORTIETH CONGRESS, Sess. II, Ch. 70”
(and other “Statutes at Large”), then by what authority does
the “Fortieth Congress” rely upon to set forth conditions for any of those “states”
[“States”] to exercise its “U.S. Const., Art. V” (supra.) rights of “suffrage”
in the “U.S. Senate”?
As the above named “states” [“States”] were not allowed to unconditionally

occupy a seat in the “Senate” of the “U.S. Congress,” they were not “states”
Page 48 of 101
[“States”] of the “Union” having the qualifications to ratify “Amendments”
to the “Constitution” for “The United States of America.”
Emancipation Proclamation
1. President Abraham Lincoln issued forth an “Executive Order,”

known as the “Emancipation Proclamation” of September 22, 1862,
granting Africans temporary freedom if they participated in the Civil War
as “Agents” of the Union Military. The intention of the President
to grant Africans the status of “citizenship” and “freedom” was cut short
by his “assassination” at the hands of the “Jesuits” of the “Catholic Church.”
President Lincoln attempted to perpetuate his “Emancipation Proclamation”

by proposing the “Involuntary Servitude Amendment,” (known today
as the Thirteenth (13th) Amendment) giving the Africans the status of “freedom.”
This status of “freedom” was cut short when the U.S. Congress,
and several states of the Union, made Africans the “Servants” to a new “Master.”
Their new “Master” is identified within the Fourteenth (14th) Amendment

as being the U.S. Congress (whose members forced Africans to be “citizens”
of the “United States” against their will and without their consent, and with
the U.S. Congress being the enforcer of the Amendment).
(see “U.S. Const., 14th Amend., Section 1” & “Section 5”).
It was the “Plan” /94 of President Lincoln to offer the Africans a choice at
the conclusion of the Civil War to either become “citizens” of the “United States,”
94/ “https://tinyurl.com/wcwmwka2“ (Video)
Page 49 of 101
or in the alternative, be transported back to their Homeland (e.g. “Republic
of Liberia” /95) at the expense of the United States. Of course this did not happen.
Do you not understand the views of the Africans of today! They look back
to the Civil War and see that at no time were their “Ancestors” ever under
the jurisdiction of the United States. They also know that no Nation may (lawfully)
compel any of their slave “Ancestors” (and their “Descendants”) to become “citizens”
of its Nation against their will. (see “Expatriate Acts” of 1868 as found
on the “Internet” at “https://tinyurl.com/y2vf4vq3”).
They view themselves as “Descendants” of their slave “Ancestors”

(which relationship to their “Ancestors” does not bring them under the authority of
the Fourteenth (14th) Amendment to the Constitution for The United States
of America), and as such, they are not “citizens” of our Nation. They view
themselves as having no obligation of “Allegiance” to observe the “laws” of
our Nation.
As their slave “Ancestors” were never given the opportunity to make

a “freedom of choice” to be returned back to their Homeland, they believe that they
have a need to involve themselves in “Riots” and “Civil Disorder” for the purpose
of destroying a Nation that they believe keeps them in the status
of “Involuntary Servitude” to a Nation that is not of their own.
The solution is to execute the “Plan” /96 of former President, Abraham Lincoln,
and set forth a number of days for every African to come forward and make
a choice of accepting an “Oath of Allegiance” /97 (as given to “Candidates”
95/ “https://tinyurl.com/sd6858by”
96/ “https://tinyurl.com/2uc6y3c3”
97/ “https://tinyurl.com/3v7kkept”
Page 50 of 101
for “Naturalization” of “Citizenship”) and become “Citizens” of our “Nation”
of “The United States of America,” or in the alternative, be returned back to
the Homeland of their “Ancestors.” Any African who does not accept this offer,
or anyone who obstructs this offer, shall be “incarcerated” for being
a “domestic enemy” to our “Constitution” for “The United States of America.”
Proclamations of Ratifications
1. Philander C. Knox /98 never held an Office of the United States for he was never
appointed into Office by a lawful President of The United States
of America. (infra. /99). Philander C. Knox had no lawful authority
to issue forth Proclamations, including Proclamations of Ratifications
of Constitutional Amendments. (infra.). There are no lawful (“dejure”)
“Proclamation(s) of Ratification” for the Sixteenth (16th) Amendment leaving
the Sixteenth (16th) Amendment to be “null and void” Ab Initio.
2. During the years of 1866-67, the Congress of the northern (‘Yankee’) states
proclaimed (with their enactments of laws) that the southern (‘Rebel’) states had
no lawful Republican form of Governments, and as such, their Representatives
were denied their seats in the House and the Senate of the U.S. Congress.
These Representatives of the southern states were not allowed to participate
in the “Debates” nor cast “votes” upon the “Joint Resolution” proposing
the Fourteenth (14th) Amendment.
98/ “https://tinyurl.com/4tdepxax”
99/ See “Statement of Facts” as found within the section addressing
the “Seventeenth (17th) Amendment.”
Page 51 of 101
To make matters worse; while those states were under Congressional
mandated “Martial Law” of “Military Districts,” the Congress of the northern states
declared that those southern states (with unlawful governments)
were to be “required” to cast “Votes of Ratification” on
the Fourteenth (14th) Amendment (and the Fifteenth (15th) Amendment)
“as a condition” of being reinstated into the Union with their status of “statehood”
and being represented in the U.S. Congress:
1) THIRTY-NINTH CONGRESS, Sess. II, Ch. 153 /100

2) FORTIETH CONGRESS, Session I, Chapter 30 /101
3) FORTIETH CONGRESS, Sess. II. Ch. 69 /102
4) FORTIETH CONGRESS, Sess. II, Ch. 70 /103
5) FORTY-FIRST CONGRESS, Sess. II. Ch. 10 /104
6) FORTY-FIRST CONGRESS, Sess. II, Ch. 19 /105
7) FORTY-FIRST CONGRESS, Sess. II, Ch. 39 /106
8) U.S. Senate Resolution of December 5, 1866 /107
9) U.S. Congress, Joint Resolution No. 58 /108
100/ “https://tinyurl.com/yxgvbfea”
101/ “https://tinyurl.com/y4zfbvc6”
102/ “https://tinyurl.com/yxj2wmkh”
103/ “https://tinyurl.com/y67anulx”
104/ “https://tinyurl.com/y6h842vc”
105/ “https://tinyurl.com/y5t9vsuc”
106/ “https://tinyurl.com/y6ecq4nr”
107/ “https://tinyurl.com/y5vtatur”
108/ “https://tinyurl.com/yy9zssvt”
Page 52 of 101
(“A ‘Joint Resolution’ excluding from the ‘Electoral College’ votes
of ‘States’ lately in ‘Rebellion,’ which shall have not been reorganized”).
[Emphasis added].
This “Joint Resolution No. 58” is the “Document of Proof” that

the southern states were stripped of their status of “statehood.”
14. The question arises:
“If those southern (‘Rebel’) states had no lawful governments,

as proclaimed by the Congress of the northern (‘Yankee’) states, why did
the northern states (sitting in Congress) allow the southern states
to cast votes of ratification (and then accepting their votes as being cast
by legitimate governments of a state) upon the “Involuntary Servitude
Amendment” (known today as the Thirteenth (13th) Amendment)
to the Constitution for The United States of America”? /109
This “vote of ratification” on the Fourteenth (14th) Amendment took place

at the time when the Congress of the northern (‘Rebel’) states gave
its approval to the U.S. Secretary of State, Philander C. Knox’s issuance
of “Proclamations of Ratifications” for the Fourteenth (14th) Amendment /110
and the Fifteenth (15th) Amendment. /111 But as Philander C. Knox was never
appointed into the “Office” of Secretary of State by a legitimate President
of The United States of America (infra. /112), there are no legitimate (“dejure”)
“Proclamation(s) of Ratification(s)” for the Fourteenth (14th) Amendment leaving
the Amendment to be “null and void” Ab Inito.
109/ “https://tinyurl.com/jdnhng6”
110/ “https://tinyurl.com/y3zj2f9v” and “https://tinyurl.com/y6nyq6hm”

111/ “https://tinyurl.com/yxjy75qm”
112/ See “Statement of Facts” found within the section addressing the “Seventeenth (17th) Amendment.”
Page 53 of 101
With the “assassination” of President Lincoln by John Wilkes Booth, /113
{ with the aid of Samuel Arnold,/114 George Atzerodt,/115 David Herold,/116
Michael O'Laughlen,/117 Lewis Powell (also known as Lewis Paine),
John Surratt, and Mary Surratt, [all of whom were “Catholic Jesuits” /118
or “Jesuit” sympathizers] }, the states (and the people) were compelled
by “Force of Arms” of the “Military” to adopt the Fourteenth
and Fifteenth (15th) Amendments as Amendments to the Constitution
For the detailed history of the Fourteenth (14th) Amendment, you may view
the “Treatise” on the “Internet” at: “https://tinyurl.com/hvrz86x”.
To view a large resource of “Documents” on the Fourteenth (14th) Amendment,

you may view those “Documents” on the “Internet” at: “https://tinyurl.com/6wbsoul”.
Every “Judge” and “Justice” of our “Federal Courts” and every “member” of
the U.S. Congress that continues to use the Fourteenth (14th) Amendment in
their “Court Opinions” and “Statutes at Large” after being “noticed” by the “states” of
the “Union” that the Fourteenth and Fifteenth (15th) Amendments are “null and void
Ab Initio” for “want of ratification,” they are no longer acting in the “official capacity” of
an “Officer” of The United States of America. They have lowered themselves down to
the status of being “usurpers” and they should be removed from “Office” as such.
113/ “https://tinyurl.com/y6n63hka”
114/ “https://tinyurl.com/2rrvmn7a”
115/ “https://tinyurl.com/ykf3v6n8”
116/ “https://tinyurl.com/5d3b6eza”
117/ “https://tinyurl.com/p9cpsucy”
118/ “https://tinyurl.com/9d7fbxa2”
Page 54 of 101
Conclusion
Please take notice that each and every state of the south had created a “Constitution”
for their state as required for “admission” into the Union. Every one of those states did
create a “Republican Form of Government” as per requirement of Article IV, Section 4,
Clause 1 of the Constitution for The United States of America. Those states of
the south did operate under their own “Constitutions” before, during, and with one state,
after the Civil War. This raises the question:
“Why did the Congress of the northern states declare that a number
of southern states had “no lawful governments” while another was allowed
to keep its original Constitution and government?
Answer: The southern state that was allowed to keep its Constitution
and government was the “State of Tennessee,” a state which cast
its “vote of ratification” on the Fourteenth (14th) Amendment; while those states
that cast their “votes of rejection” were placed under “Martial Law” and declared
to have “unlawful governments.”
“The U.S. Congress of the year 1868 has taken the position that it has been
empowered to not only propose Constitutional Amendments, but it also has
been empowered to compel ratification of those Constitutional Amendments.”
The issue is not the repeal of an Amendment, for the Fourteenth (14th) Amendment
[and other Amendments (infra.)] is not an Amendment to the Constitution
for The United States of America. The issue is the “purging” of
all non-existent Amendments, (such as the Fourteenth (14th) Amendment) from
the Constitutions of the states and of The United States of America. The “purging”
of non - existent Constitutional Amendments from all Court Opinions,
from all Statutes at Large, from all Law Books of the states, and from all Text Books.
Page 55 of 101
You can only “repeal” legitimate Amendments (such as was done with
the Eighteenth (18th) Amendment with the use of the Twenty-First (21st) Amendment).
You cannot perform “impossibilities” by repealing something that does not exist,
such as fraudulent Constitutional Amendments.
/////
/////
/////
Page 56 of 101
Fifteenth Amendment
Introduction
What is stated in the Fourteenth (14th) Amendment applies to

the Fifteenth (15th) Amendment. The southern states were “expelled” from
the U.S. Congress with their Representatives not being allowed to “debate”
or cast “votes” on the “Joint Resolution” of February 26, 1869 proposing
the Fifteenth (15th) Amendment.
Statement of Facts
1. The following state of the Union has gone on record to declare

the Fifteenth (15th) Amendment to not been “proposed” nor “ratified” as
mandated by Article V of the Constitution for The United States of America.
State of Oregon
“Whereas the State of Oregon was, on the 14 th day of February, A.D. 1859,
admitted into the Federal Union vested with the right to declare
what persons should be entitled to vote within her boundaries;
and until she, by her voluntary act, surrenders that right, the Congress of
the United States has no authority to interfere with the conditions
of suffrage within the boundaries of the State of Oregon; and whereas
the Congress of the United States, by means of an arbitrary majority
of votes acquired by the power of the bayonet, has sought to force upon
the several States the so-called Fifteenth (15th) Amendment to
the Federal Constitution, in direct violation of the terms under which
the State of Oregon was admitted into the sisterhood of States:
Therefore,
Page 57 of 101
“Be it resolved by the senate, (the house concurring,) that the so-called
Fifteenth (15th) Amendment is an infringement upon the popular rights,
and a direct falsification of the pledges made to the State of Oregon by
the Federal Government.
“Resolved, That the said Fifteenth (15th) Amendment be, and the same
is hereby, rejected. …” [Emphasis added].
FORTY-FIRST CONGRESS, 3d Session,

(“Miscellaneous Document No. 56”) /119
2. We must not overlook the fact that that Philander C. Knox (infra. /120) held
no lawful “Office” of the government of The United States of America for there
was no-one that had the “Office Qualifications” to appoint Philander C. Knox
into the “Office” of “U.S. Secretary of State.” At the time that
the Fifteenth (15th) Amendment was purportedly ratified, there was no-one
in “Office” that had authority to issue forth “Proclamations of Ratifications”
(including Philander C. Knox) leaving the Fifteenth (15th) Amendment without
authority to be an “Amendment” to the Constitution for The United States
of America.
/////
/////
/////
119/ “https://tinyurl.com/y5yv8puc”.
Page 58 of 101
Conclusion
For the reasons stated herein, the Fifteenth (15th) Amendment is not an “Amendment”
to the Constitution for The United States of America. The Fifteenth (15th) Amendment
is to be “purged” from all “Constitutions,” all “Statutes at Large,” from all “Court
Rulings,” from all “Law Books” of the “states,” and from all other “Publications.”
Sixteenth Amendment
Introduction
Like many “Constitutional Amendments” which were submitted to the “Legislatures” of

the states of the Union for ratification, the Sixteenth (16th) Amendment was not uniform
in its writings. These “defects” were exposed and presented to the “members” of
the U.S. Congress and to the Federal Courts with both of those branches
of “Government” proclaiming that the “questions of ratification” were
“Political Questions” which could (would) not be addressed. /121
You may view those “defects” within a “Federal Court Document” entitled:
“DEFENDANT’S ‘THE LAW THAT NEVER WAS’ BRIEF” as presented
in the “U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois, Eastern District”
as “Number 04C 7403” in a case entitled: “UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff vs.
WILLIAM J. BENSON, Defendant.” This “Legal Brief” may be viewed as
a “PDF Document” on the “Internet” at “https://tinyurl.com/y5yg5g9k”.
121/ See website: 16th AMENDMENT NEVER RATIFIED (“https://tinyurl.com/y3o7yvug”).
Page 59 of 101
The “U.S. Congress” had previously introduced an “Income Tax” during the “Civil War”
of 1861-65, but this “Tax” had been “repealed” in 1872. In 1894, the U.S. Congress
passed the “Wilson-Gorman Tariff Act,” /122 which lowered “Tariff Rates” and made up
for some of the lost revenue by introducing “Taxes” on “Income,” “Corporate Profits,”
“Gifts,” and “Inheritances.” Chief Justice Melville Fuller's majority opinion
in Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Company /123 held that a “Federal Tax”
on “Income” derived from “property” was “unconstitutional” when it was not apportioned
among the states according to representation in the United States House
of Representatives. /124 Justice Fuller also held that “Federal Taxation” on “Interest”
earned on certain “State Bonds” violated the doctrine of “Intergovernmental
Tax Immunity.” /125 With the purported “ratification” of Sixteenth (16th) Amendment,
the case of Pollock was mooted.
Statement of Facts
There is a major problem with the Sixteenth (16th) Amendment which has never
been addressed – the Amendment was never “approved” by “ratification” of the “people”
sitting in “Convention” of the “states.”
The purported Sixteenth (16th) Amendment is a “fraud” for it is being used to move
the “property” of the “people” into the hands of the Papacy of the Catholic Church
122/ The “Revenue Act” or “Wilson-Gorman Tariff Act” of 1894 (“ch. 349, §73,” “28 Stat. 509-570,”
August 27, 1894).
123/ Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Company, 157 U.S. 429 (1895),
affirmed on rehearing, 158 U.S. 601 (1895).
124/ See U.S. Const., Art. I, Sect. 9, Cl. 4: “No capitation or other direct, tax shall be laid,
Unless in proportion to the censes or enumeration hereinafter directed to be taken.”
125/ “https://tinyurl.com/56ezb2f3”
Page 60 of 101
(“Vatican City State”) /126 via a “Private Bank” known as the “Federal Reserve Bank.” /127
The “Board of Governors” for the “Federal Reserve Bank” (and the “political elite”
of “Washington, D.C.”) have presented us with a view that the “Federal Reserve Bank”
is an “internal agency” of the “government” of The United States of America
which is totally false:
“Federal reserve banks are not federal instrumentalities for purposes of

a Federal Tort Claims Act, but are independent, privately owned and locally
controlled corporations in light of fact that direct supervision and control of each
bank is exercised by board of directors, federal reserve banks, though heavily
regulated, are locally controlled by their member banks, banks are listed neither
as “wholly owned” government corporations nor as “mixed ownership”
corporations; federal reserve banks receive no appropriated funds from Congress
and the banks are empowered to sue and be sued in their own names. . . .”
[Emphasis added].
Lewis v. United States, 680 F.2d 1239 (1982)
1. The Constitution for The United States of America at Article V provides for
the “procedure” to be used to “alter” or “amend” that Constitution. This Article V
states in part:
“…. shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution,
when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States,
or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or
the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; ….”
[Emphasis added].
126/ See “The Secrets of the Federal Reserve” (PDF Document “https://tinyurl.com/y3otnqlz”).
127/ See Kennedy C. Scott, vs. Federal Reserve Bank - No. 04-2357 - (2005)
(PDF Document “https://tinyurl.com/y4mt5y3g”) and Lewis v. United States,
680 F.2d 1239 - (1982) (PDF Document “https://tinyurl.com/y5svvmsv”).
Page 61 of 101
2. Now the question arises: “Why did the Founding Fathers provide that
the ratification of Constitution Amendments may be done by Conventions”?
There are instances in which a “Politician” has no authority (“Jurisdiction”) over

the “people,” one of those instances is the “taking” and using “property” of
the “people” without their “consent”:
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers,

and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not
be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause,
supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place
to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
[Emphasis added]
Article Four of the Bill of Rights to the Constitution

“…. nor shall private property be taken for public use without
just compensation.” [Emphasis added].
Article Five of the Bill of Rights to the Constitution

3. The “money” of the “people” is just one of those instances, for “money” (in the
hands of the “people”) is “private property.” No “Legislator” of any of the states
of the Union has ever been granted the “powers” to levy a “tax” upon
the “people” without authority of a Constitution as ratified in “Convention” of
the “people” of their “state,” so it is with the “members” of the “U.S. Congress.”
It is true that the Constitution for The United States of America was ratified by
the “people” sitting in “Convention” of the “states” (see “U.S. Constitution,
Article VII”):
Page 62 of 101
“Done in convention by unanimous consent of the states present
the seventeenth day of September in the year of our Lord one thousand
seven hundred and eighty - seven and of the Independence
of The United States of America the twelfth. …; and …”
[Emphasis added].
It is also true that the Constitution for The United States o America
has provisions to provide for the “taxation” of the “people” and it does set forth
the “procedures” for levying that “tax”:
“No capitation, or other direct, tax shall be laid, unless in proportion

to the census or enumeration hereinafter directed to be taken.”
[Emphasis added].
U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 9, Clause 4
“No tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any state.”
[Emphasis added].
U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 9, Clause 5
As it took a “Constitutional Convention” to approve the “Clauses” of “Taxation” of

the “Constitution” for The United States of America (authorizing the taking
of “property” of the “people” for “public use”), the same is true when it comes to
the “altering” or “amending” of the “mode of collection” of those “taxes”
as set forth by the Sixteenth (16th) Amendment. As the “Clauses” of “Taxation”
of the “Constitution” for The United States of America required the “approval” of
the “people” setting in “Constitutional Conventions” of the “states,” so it is with
a “Constitutional Amendment” to “alter” or “amend” those “Clauses”
of “Taxation.”
4. As the Sixteenth (16th) Amendment to the Constitution “was never” submitted to

a “Convention” of the “states” for “ratification,” it exist in “fraud” and is required
Page 63 of 101
to be “purged” from all “Constitutions,” from all “Law Books,” from
all “Court Records,” and from all “Text Books.”
5. As the Sixteenth (16th) Amendment to the Constitution for The United States
of America does not have a “lawful” (“dejure”) existence, the “Internal Revenue
Code” (as codified in “Statutes at Large” /128 and “Title 26,
United States Code” /129) has problems as many of its “Sections”
are “repugnant” to U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 9, Clause 4. The “taxes”
on “Income” are being “assessed” as a “direct tax” derived from “property”
without being “apportioned” to the “census” or without “enumeration” as ruled
upon by Chief Justice Melville Fuller /130 in Pollock v. Farmers' Loan
& Trust Company, 157 U.S. 429 (1895) (supra.). The offending “Sections” of
the “Statutes at Large” and within “Title 26, United States Code” needs
to be “purged.”
Conclusion
Without the “consent” of the “people” sitting in “Conventions” of the “states,”

there were no “members” of the U.S. Congress that had authority
to propose “Constitutional Amendments” to “alter” the scheme of “taxation” as set forth
by the “Constitution” for The United States of America. The “U.S. Congress” had
no authority to declare the Sixteenth (16th) Amendment (an “Amendment”
which “confiscates” the “money” {“property”} of the “people” in the name of “taxes”) was
to be “ratified” by “Legislatures” of the “states” without consent of the “people,” nor were
there any “Member” of the “Legislatures” of the “states” of the “Union” that had authority
128/ “https://tinyurl.com/j6bxmn3h”
129/ “https://tinyurl.com/4ume94kb”
130/ “https://tinyurl.com/ye35jjyr”
Page 64 of 101
of the “people” to cast “votes of ratification” on “money confiscation schemes”
with “Constitutional Amendments,” such as with the Sixteenth (16th) Amendment.
As the Sixteenth (16th) Amendment “was not” ratified by the “people” sitting
in “Conventions” of the “states” as mandated by Article V of the Constitution
for The United States of America, it is not an “Amendment” to the U.S. Constitution.
The Sixteenth (16th) Amendment needs to be “purged” from all “Text Books,”
from all “Rulings” of the “Courts,” from the “Statutes at Large,” from all “Law Books”
of the “states,” from all “Constitutions” of the “states,” and from the “Constitution”
of “The United States of America.”
Again, we must not overlook the fact that that Philander C. Knox (infra. /131) held
no lawful “Office” of the government of The United States of America for there was
no-one that had the “Office Qualifications” to appoint Philander C. Knox into the “Office”
of “U.S. Secretary of State.” At the time when the Sixteenth (16th) Amendment was
purportedly “ratified,” there was no-one in “Office” (including Philander C. Knox)
that had “authority” to issue forth “Proclamations of Ratification” leaving
the Sixteenth (16th) Amendment without authority to be an “Amendment” to
the “Constitution” for The United States of America.
//////
//////
//////
Page 65 of 101
Seventeenth Amendment
Introduction
The “Americans” did not directly vote for “Senators” for the first 125 years of
the Federal Government. The Constitution, as it was adopted in 1788, stated
that “Senators” would be elected by “state Legislators.” /132 The first “proposal” to
amend the Constitution to elect “Senators” by “popular vote” was introduced in
the U.S. House of Representatives in 1826, but the idea did not gain considerable
support until the late “19th Century” when several problems related to Senate elections
had become evident. Several “state Legislatures” deadlocked over the election
of “Senators” which led to Senate vacancies lasting months, and even years. In other
cases, “political machines” gained control over “state Legislatures,” and the “Senators”
elected with their support, were dismissed as “Puppets.” In addition, the Senate was
seen as a “millionaire's club” serving powerful “private interests.” The rise of
the “People's Party,” commonly referred to as the “Populist Party,” added “motivation”
for making the Senate more directly accountable to the “people.”
During the 1890s, the House of Representatives passed several “Resolutions”

proposing a “Constitutional Amendment” for the direct election of “Senators.”
Each time, however, the Senate refused to even take a vote. When it seemed unlikely
that both Houses of Congress would pass “legislation” proposing an “Amendment”
for direct election, many states changed strategies. Article V of the U.S. Constitution
states that Congress must call a “Convention” for proposing Amendments
when two-thirds (⅔rd) of the state Legislatures apply for one. Although the method had
never previously been used, many states began sending Congress “Applications”
for “Conventions.” As the number of “Applications” neared the two-thirds (⅔rd) bar,
Congress finally acted.
132/ see U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 3, Clause 1 [https://tinyurl.com/ujbmzdyc].
Page 66 of 101
Statement of Facts
1. Philander C. Knox, play acting as “Secretary of State,” introduced

the “Seventeenth (17th) Amendment” into “Congress.”
Comment: It is noted that Philander C. Knox held no lawful “Office” of

the government of The United States of America for William Howard Taft
was not a U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 1, Clause 5
“natural born Citizen” of the “United States,” qualifying him for the “Office”
of President of The United States of America.
As William Howard Taft was born within a “Territory” (“Ohio”), /133 which
did not have the status of being a state of The United States of America,
he most likely did not have the status of being a “Citizen” of
the “United States,” /134 not to mention not having the required status of
being a “natural born Citizen” for want of the existence of
the Fourteenth (14th) Amendment /135 (a required status of “citizenship” for
the “Office” of “President” of The United States of America.).
As “William Howard Taft” never had the “Office Qualifications” for
the “Office” of “President” for The United States of America,
[President] “Taft” never had any authority to appoint anyone into
a “Cabinet Office” of the “Executive Branch” of government,
including “Philander C. Knox” being appointed into the “Cabinet Office”
of “U.S. Secretary of State.”
133/ Born in “Cincinnati, Ohio” in the year of 1857.
134/ Without an enactment of law made under authority of a Constitutional Amendment (as was done for
the “Inhabitants” of the “Territories” of “Alaska” and of “Hawaii” {see “June 27, 1952, ch. 477, title III,
ch. 1, § 304,” “66 Stat. 237”}) (“https://tinyurl.com/yc7npvx6”), those who were born within “Territories”
or “Possession” of the “United States” did not automatically obtain “citizenship” of the “United States.”
They were classified as “Nationals” (see “54 Stat. 1137, Section 101” [“https://tinyurl.com/yd33lvan”]).
135/ The Fourteenth (14th) Amendment was purportedly propose on June 13, 1866 and purportedly ratified
on July 9, 1868. The “Justices” of the U.S. Supreme Court case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark,
169 U.S. 649 (“https://tinyurl.com/ptnayru”) cited the Fourteenth (14th) Amendment to support
its “natural born Citizen” status ruling of [President] “Barack Obama Jr..” That Amendment does not
apply to “William Howard Taft” as the Fourteenth (14th) Amendment did not exist during the “Taft”
tenure as “President” of The United States of America.
Page 67 of 101
The proof to be found that “Ohio” was not a state of the Union during
the years that “Knox” served his term as “U.S. Secretary of State,”
(which was from March 4, 1905 to March 4, 1911) is found in the fact that
the Eighty-Third (83rd) Congress found the need to enact “Public Law 204,
83rd Congress, 1st Session” /136 to admit “Ohio” into the “Union” as
a “state.”
But even then we see that “Section 2” of that “Public Law 204”
(identified as a “Joint Resolution”) has a problem for we find:
“This Joint Resolution shall take effect as of March 1, 1803.

Approved August 7, 1953.”
There are no provisions in the U.S. Constitution that authorizes

the retroactive admission of states into the Union with what may
be classified as an “Ex Post Facto Law”: /137
“Ex post facto is most typically {having exceptions} used to refer to

a criminal statute that punishes actions “retroactively,”
thereby criminalizing {what was lawful} conduct that was lawful
{now unlawful} when originally performed. There are
two (2) “Clauses” in the “United States Constitution” that
prohibits “ex post facto laws” [Emphasis added]:
“U.S. Const., Art. 1, § 9, Cl. 3”
“This “Clause Three” prohibits “Congress” from passing any laws

which apply “ex post facto.” [Emphasis added].
“U.S Const., Art. 1 § 10, Cl. 1”
“This “Clause One” prohibits the “states” from passing any laws
which apply ex post facto.” [Emphasis added].
Legal Information Institute (LII)
136/ See “67 Stat. 407” – “Public Law 204 @ Chapter 337” (see “https://tinyurl.com/y8knhhb8”).
137/ “No bill of attainder or ex post facto law shall be past.” (see “U.S. Const., Art. I, Sec 9, Cl. 3”).
[Emphasis added].
Page 68 of 101
Furthermore, no U.S. Congress of today has any authority to speak for
a past U.S. Congress leaving “Public Law 204, 83rd Congress,
1st Session” without “any effect” Ab Initio.
The effective date of “March 1, 1803” is also “null and void” for “Ohio” was
not admitted into the Union by the “Seventh (7th) Session” of
the U.S. Congress [in session from March 4, 1801 to March 4, 1803]
leaving the “date of admission” of “Ohio” into the “Union”
to be “without effect” Ab Initio.
Another problem surfaces under this “Public Law 204.” The “members” of
the U.S. Congress used a “Resolution” to make a “Law” when the intent of
the “Founding Fathers” was for only “Bills” to become “Law.” The use
of “Resolutions” were to be used for expressing an “opinion,”
or to “censure” some “person” or “action,” but were never
to become “Law.”
It appears that even unto today, “Ohio” exist only as a “Territory”

of The United States of America for there is no legitimate
“Statute at Large” to be found that admits the “Territory of Ohio” into
the “Union” as a “state.”
2. In the year of 1911, the “House of Representatives” passed

“House Joint Resolution 39” proposing a “Constitutional Amendment”
for “direct election” of “Senators.” However, it included a “race rider” meant
to bar “Federal intervention” in cases of “racial discrimination” among “voters”:
“The times, places, and manner of holding elections for Senators shall be
as prescribed in each State by the legislature thereof.”
A substitute “amendment” by “Senator Joseph L. Bristow” (R-KS) removed

the “race rider.” The amended “Joint Resolution” was adopted by
Page 69 of 101
the “U.S. Senate” on a “close vote” in May of 1911. Over a year later,
the “U.S. House” accepted the change, and the proposed
“Constitutional Amendment” was sent to the states for “ratification.”
On April 8, 1913, three - quarters (¾ths) of the states had “ratified”
the proposed “Amendment” and it was officially included as
the “Seventeenth (17th) Amendment.” This “Amendment” had the net effect
of destroying the “sovereignty” of government of the “states.”
The Seventeenth (17th) Amendment was not “proposed” nor “ratified” as

mandated by U.S. Constitution, Article V:
“The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem

it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, … and that
no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in
the Senate.” [Emphasis added].
For there to be a legitimate “Joint Resolution” proposing

the “Seventeenth (17th) Amendment” (an “Amendment” to provide for a “Senator”
by “popular vote” of the “people” instead of being “appointed” by the Legislatures
of the several states of the Union), there must be an “unanimous vote” to be cast
by every “member” of the “U.S. House of Representatives” and of
the “U.S. Senate” on that “Joint Resolution.” This did not happen.
Many “Legislatures” of the states were “out of session” during the time
the “ratification process” as set forth by the U.S. Congress took place, thus they
have been deprived of their “suffrage” in the U.S. House of Congress and
of their “equal suffrage” in the U.S. Senate.
Here is the “Roll Call Vote” of June 12, 1911 on “House Joint Resolution 39”
by “members” of the U.S. Senate: (“https://tinyurl.com/3wnnekwc”).
Page 70 of 101
Bacon - Nay Bailey - Yea Bankhead - Nay Borah - Yea
Bourne - Yea Bradley – n/a Brandegee - Nay Briggs - Yea
Bristow - Yea Brown - Yea Bryan - Yea Burnham - Nay
Burton - Yea Chamberlain - Yea Chilton - Yea Clapp - Yea
Clark, Wyo - Yea Clark, Ark - Yea Crane - Nay Crawford - Yea
Culberson - Yea Cullom - Yea Cummins - Yea Curtis - Yea
Davis - Yea Dillingham - Nay Dixon - Yea Du Pont - Yea
Fletcher - Nay Foster - Nay Frye – n/a Gallinger - Nay
Gamble - Yea Gore - Yea Gronna - Yea Guggenheim - Yea
Heyburn - Nay Hitchcock - Yea Johnson - Yea Johnston - Nay
Jones - Yea Kenyon - Yea Kern - Yea La Follette - Yea
Lea - Yea Lippitt - Nay Lodge - Nay Lorimer - Nay
McCumber - Yea McLean - Yea Martin - Yea Martine - Yea
Myers - Yea Nelson - Yea Newlands - Yea Nixon - Yea
O’Gorman - Yea Oliver - Nay Overman – n/a Owen – n/a
Page - Nay Paynter - Yea Penrose - Nay Percy - Nay
Perkins - Yea Poindexter - Yea Pomerene - Yea Rayner - Yea
Reed - Yea Richardson - Nay Root - Nay Shively - Yea
Simmons - Yea Smith, Md - Yea Smith, Mich - Yea Smith, S. C. - Yea
Smoot - Nay Stephenson - Yea Stone - Yea Sutherland - Yea
Swanson - Yea Taylor - Yea Terrell - Yea Thornton - Yea
Tillman – n/a Townsend - Yea Warren - Yea Watson - Yea
Wetmore - Nay Williams - Nay Works - Yea ===========
Because of the “non-participation” of several states in the casting

of “votes of approbation” on the “adoption” of the “Joint Resolution”
(“H.J. Res. 39”) (proposing the wording of the
Seventeenth (17th) Amendment), those nine (9) states have been deprived
of their “rights” of “equal suffrage” in the “U.S. Senate.” The same is true
of those states (“Delaware” and “Utah”) which their “Senators” formally “objected”
to the “Joint Resolution” by casting a “negative vote” on the “Resolution.”
Page 71 of 101
Conclusion
The “U.S. Secretary of State” announced, in the year of 1913,

that the Seventeenth (17th) Amendment had been ratified by the Legislatures
of thirty-six (36) of the forty-eight (48) states of the Union. The U.S. Constitution,
Article V (supra.) says all 100% of the states must be in agreement to any change
in their voice in the U.S. Senate, not three-quarters (¾th) as he announced.
With the purported adoption of the Seventeenth (17th) Amendment, we see
that thirty-six (36) states have forced a change on the other states in their equal rights
of “suffrage” within the U.S. Senate. Today, the states, in their sovereign status
of “Countries,” no longer meet within a body of “Congress” as provided for by “Article II”
and “Article III” of the “1778 Articles of Confederation,” only the “Political Parties” of
the “foreign nation” of “Vatican City State” exercise that “right.” /138
All “Constitutional Amendments” adopted thereafter are “null and void” for want of
a legitimate (“dejure”) U.S. Congress to propose those “Amendments.” Most notable is
the Nineteenth (19th) Amendment in granting “Women” the “rights to vote” which
the Federal Courts have proclaimed to be the authority for granting “Women”
the “Political Powers” to hold “Public Offices” of the government of The United States
of America. It should be noted that the only location to be found within
the U.S. Constitution where the word “Suffrage” appears, is Article V.
The word “Suffrage” does not appear in the Fifteenth nor the Nineteenth Amendments,
but only the words “to vote,” and notwithstanding the “dictum” /139 opinions of “Judges,”
there are no terms to be found within those “Amendments” that grants “Women”
138/ “Jacob Schiff,” a “Jewish Catholic Jesuit,” infiltrated both the “Republican” and “Democrat”
“Political Parties” between the years of 1870 – 1920, bringing both of those “Political Parties” under
the control of the “Black Pontiff” of the “Catholic Church.”
139/ Dictum - n. Latin for "remark", a comment by a judge in a decision or ruling which is not
required to reach the decision, but may state a related legal principle as the judge understands it.
While it may be cited in legal argument, it does not have the full force of a precedent
(previous court decisions or interpretations) since the comment was not part of the legal basis
for judgment. The standard counter argument is: "it is only dictum (or dicta)."
Page 72 of 101
and “Africans” the “Political Powers” to hold “Public Offices” of The United States
of America.
With the purported ratification of the Seventeenth (17th) Amendment to the Constitution
for The United States of America, there are no longer any lawful (“dejure”) “Senators”
in “Office” that have lawful “authority” to participate in the creation of any “Tribunals” that
are inferior to the “Supreme Court” as authorized by U.S. Constitution, Article I,
Section 8, Clause 9 or to confirm any “Judge” / “Justice” into “Office” as required
by U.S. Constitution, Article II, Clause 2, Section 2 leaving the “people” of our “Nation”
without any means of obtaining a “Redress of Grievances” or a “Resolution of Disputes”
between the states. All “Rulings” of the “U.S. Supreme Court,” and its “inferior Courts,”
by “Judicial Officers” (that were [purportedly] confirmed into “Office” after
the date of April 8, 1913, the date of the purported “ratification” of
the Seventeenth (17th) Amendment), are all “null and void” as a matter of law.
With the purported “ratification” of the Seventeenth (17th) Amendment to

the Constitution for The United States of America, there were no longer any lawful
(“dejure”) “Senators” in “Office” that had lawful “authority” to propose “Amendments” to
the Constitution for The United States of America. All “Joint Resolutions”
proposing “Constitutional Amendments” (which were “Debated” by Senators
holding “Office” under the Seventeenth (17th) Amendment) are all “null and void”
for not being “accepted” by a lawful (“dejure”) “U.S. Senate” leaving
all “Constitutional Amendments” existing after the purported “ratification” of
the Seventeenth (17th) Amendment to be “null and void” as a matter of law.
Page 73 of 101
Conclusion
The Seventeenth (17th) Amendment, (and all “Constitutional Amendments”

existing thereafter), need to be purged from the Constitution for The United States
of America, purged from all “Law Books,” purged from all “Court Documents,”
and purged from all “Text Books.”
All “members” of the present day “Senate” of The United States of America shall
be “expelled” from “Office” for want of “Office Qualifications.” They shall be replaced
with appointed “Senators” of the “Legislators” of the states as mandated
by U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 3, Clause 1.
Nineteenth Amendment
The 1874 case of “Minor v. Happersett” /140 represents a rare instance of

the “Supreme Court” directly deciding a “Guarantee Clause” of “U.S. Constitution
Article IV, Section 4” issue. In “Minor,” the “Court” addressed whether
the “state of Missouri’s” denial of the “right to vote” to “Women” complied with
the “U.S. Constitution.” /141 The “Court” stated that the “Guarantee Clause” leaves room
for “states” to structure their “governments” in various ways yet remain “Republican.” /142
140/ “https://tinyurl.com/2kexbntr”
141/ “88 U.S. 162 (1874)” superseded by constitutional amendment, “U.S. Const. amend. XIX.” See also
“Amdt. 19.1” Overview of “Nineteenth Amendment,” (“Women’s Voting Rights”). The primary
constitutional basis for the claim in “Minor” was the “Fourteenth Amendment’s” “Privileges”
or “Immunities Clause.” “Minor, 88 U.S. at 165.”
142/ “Minor, 88 U.S. at 175” ("No particular government is designated as republican, neither is the exact
form to be guaranteed, in any manner especially designated.").
Page 74 of 101
Relying on historical practice as dispositive of the matter, the “Court” held that
the “Guarantee Clause” did not require “Women’s Suffrage” because at the time
of ratification, “Women” were excluded from “Suffrage” in nearly all the “states,”
with the “franchise” only bestowed upon “Men” and not upon all of them. /143
Upon the [purported] ratification of the “Fifteenth Amendment,” the “Women” had
an “outcry” when they discovered that the “Amendment” did not include “Women” in
the grant of “voting.” A demand was placed upon the “U.S. Congress” to correct
the oversight with another “Amendment,” the “Nineteenth Amendment”:
“The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged
by the United States or by any state on account of sex.” [Emphasis added]
U.S. Constitution, Nineteenth Amendment, Section 1
Like the “Fifteenth Amendment,” this “Nineteenth Amendment” does not include
the word “Suffrage” and no inference may be made that these two “Amendments”
includes holding “Public Offices of Trust” in the absence of the word “Suffrage” in
the “Amendments.” No “Judge,” nor any other “Officer” of the “government” of
the “United States,” have any authority to enlarge these two “Amendments” to include
the holding of “Public Offices of Trust” of the “government.” All “Women,” (and those
whom are not white “Caucasian” male “Citizens”) whom were “elected” or “appointed”
into a “Public Office of Trust” of the “Executive” or “Congressional” branch of
the “government” of “The United States of America,” are all “USURPERS”
of “government” and they need to be removed from those “Offices.”
143/ Id. Continuing in this vein, the “Supreme Court” reasoned that the “Guarantee Clause” could not
secure “Women” the “right to vote” because "[n]o new “state” has ever been admitted to the “Union”
which has conferred the “right of suffrage” upon “Women,” and this has never been considered
a valid objection to her admission” and "the “right of suffrage” was withdrawn from “Women” as early
as 1807 in the “state of New Jersey,” without any attempt to obtain the interference of
the “United States” to prevent it." Id. at 177-78.
Page 75 of 101
Miscellaneous
“An ACT to give the Supreme Court authority

to make and publish rules in actions at law”
( 48 Stat. 1064 )
Please take “Judicial Notice” that the above “Law” of “48 Stat. 1064, Ch. 651” speaks
of all “lower case lettered” “[d]istrict [c]ourts” denoting that they are “Article I”
“Legislative Tribunals,” not the Judicial “[D]istrict [C]ourts” of “Article III”
of the “Constitution” for “The United States of America.”
Page 76 of 101
U.S. Constitution, Article III, Section 2
“The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under
this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which
shall be made, under their Authority; — to all Cases affecting Ambassadors,
other public Ministers and Consuls; — to all Cases of admiralty
and maritime Jurisdiction; — to Controversies to which the United States shall
be a Party; — to Controversies between two or more States; — between a
State and Citizens of another State, — between Citizens of different States, —
between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants
of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof,
and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
“In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, . . . .”
[Emphasis added].
U.S. Constitution, Article III, Section 2
What is at issue is the authority of the “U.S. Congress” to establish a new body of “Law”
that is foreign to the “states” [“States”] of the “Union” by combining the “Law”
and “Equity” of “Section 2” of “Article III” of the “Constitution” for “The United States
of America” into one (1) form of “Law” to be called “Civil Action” [see “Rule 2” of
the “Federal Rules of Civil Procedure”] with the “Justices” of the “U.S. Supreme Court”
applying that “Rule” to the “Article III” “U.S. [D]istict [C]ourts.” It appears that
the “U.S. Congress” of 1934 is relying upon “Article III, Section 2, Clause 2” of
the “U.S. Constitution” as its authority to combine the “Law” and “Equity” clauses of
the “Constitution” into “Civil Law”:
“…. The Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact,
with such exceptions, and under regulations as the Congress shall make.”
[Emphasis added].
Please take notice that the word “Equity” does not appear in “Article III, Section 2,
Clause 2” of the “U.S. Constitution.” This “Clause 2” provision addresses
only “Appeals,” not original “Actions” in “Law” or “Equity.”
Page 77 of 101
There would be no objection to the enactment of “48 Stat. 1064, Ch. 651”
if that “Statute” was limited to the “Legislative Tribunals” of “Article I, Section 8,
Clause 9” of the “Constitution” for “The United States of America” as
the “U.S. Congress” has been granted full “jurisdiction” over such “Tribunals” [“courts”]
(see “Article I, Section 8, Clause 9” - “The Congress shall have Power . . .”).
Please take “Judicial Notice” that the case of “Mookini et al. v. United States,
303 U.S. 201, 58 S.Ct. 543, 82 L.Ed. 748 (1938)” has declared:
“. . . . the term "District Courts of the United States" means constitutional Courts
created under Art. III of the Constitution; it does not embrace legislative courts
such as the district court for the Territory of Hawaii. Pg. 303 U. S. 205.”
The “Judicial Power” of “Article II, Section 2, Clause 1” “Courts” does not apply
to the “Legislative Power” of “Article I, Section 8, Clause 9” for the “U.S. Congress”
to create “Legislative Tribunals” for “Territories” and “Possessions” of
the “United States.” “Legislative Tribunals” (with all lower case lettering)
are not “Judicial Courts.”
But this is not true today, for the “Courts” of “Article III, Section 1, Clause 1”
also exercises the “Civil Law” of “48 Stat. 1064, Ch. 651” and other “Statutes,”
not the body of “Law” and “Equity” as established by “Article III, Section 2, Clause 1”
of the “Constitution” for “The United States of America.” Without authority of
a “Constitutional Amendment,” the “U.S. Congress” and the “Justices”
of the “U.S. Supreme Court” have abolished the long time procedural standing of “Law”
and “Equity” of “Article III” with the enactment of “48 Stat. 1064, Ch. 651” leaving
all “Civil Action” cases of the “U.S. District Courts” of the fifty (50) “states” [“States”] of
the “Union” to be “Null and Void” Ab Initio.
Furthermore, with the enactment of “48 Stat. 1064, Ch. 651,” the “U.S. Congress” and
the “Justices” of the “U.S. Supreme Court” have now taken the liberty to charge “Fees”
Page 78 of 101
(e.g. “Court Filing Fees”) for the “rights” of the “people” to “Petition their Government for
a Redress of Grievance” in the “U.S. District Courts” /144 in violation of “Article I” of
the “Bill of Rights” to the “Constitution” for “The United States of America.”
The “U.S. Congress” has no authority to compel “monetary payments” from the “people”
to exercise their “rights” as established by the “Constitution” for “The United States
of America.”
Corporations
The “Chief Justice Marshall” ruled In the infamous case of “Marbury v. Madison,
17 U.S. 316” (1819), /145 that the government of The United States of America was
granted authority by the U.S. Constitution to issue forth “Charters of Incorporations.”
With respect to be given, “Chief Justice Marshall” does error.
This case of “Marbury v. Madison” was brought to the “Court” challenging the authority
for the “U.S. Congress” to create a “National Bank” through the use
of “Charters of Incorporation.” This case also ruled upon the “immunity” of
the government of The United States of America to have its “Instrumentalities,” such as
its “National Banks,” from being subjected to the “taxation powers” of a state.
In this lengthy “Ruling” of the “Court,” “Chief Justice Marshall” goes to great lengths
to apply the “Necessary and Proper Clause” of Article I, Section 8, Clause 18 of
the Constitution for The United States of America as the authority for the creation
of “Corporations,” but failed to apply the “Reports” of the August 18th, 1787
144/ First “filing fee” for the “U.S. District Court” was enacted on June 5, 1948 in the amount of “$15.00”
(see “62 USC 954, Section 1914”). Today, the filing fee is “$350.00” (see “120 USC 183,
Section 1001”).
145/ “https://tinyurl.com/y7p62sbo”
Page 79 of 101
“Constitutional Convention” and apply the “Reports”of the September 14th, 1787
“Constitutional Convention.” These “Reports” of the “Constitutional Convention”
document the “Proposal” of “Delegate Madison” to include the “Power” to grant
“Charters of Incorporation” for the “General Legislature” into the proposed “Constitution”
for “The United States of America”:
“August 18, 1787 Convention /146
“MR. MADISON submitted in order to be referred to the Committee

of detail the following powers as proper to be added to those of
the General Legislature. [Emphasis added].
“……………….
“To grant charters of incorporation in cases where the public good may
require them, and the authority of a single State may be incompetent.
[Emphasis added].
“……………….”
____________________________________
“September 14th, 1787 Convention /147
“DOC FRANKLIN moved to add after the words post roads Art I, Sect., 8.
a power to provide for cutting canals where deemed necessary.
[Emphasis added].
“MR. WILSON 2nd the motion. [Emphasis added].
146/ As quoted from pg. 563 of “U.S. House Document 398” of the “69th Congress, 1st Session” entitled:
“DOCUMENTS ILLUSTRATIVE OF THE FORMATION OF THE UNION OF THE
AMERICAN STATES” as published in the year of 1927. (See “H.C. Res. 23” of May 10, 1926
and “H.C. Res. 400” of July 7, 1965).
147/ As quoted from pgs. 724-725 of “U.S. House Document 398” of the “69th Congress, 1st Session”
entitled: “DOCUMENTS ILLUSTRATIVE OF THE FORMATION OF THE UNION OF THE
AMERICAN STATES” as published in the year of 1927. (See “H.C. Res. 23” of May 10, 1926
and “H.C. Res. 400” of July 7, 1965).
Page 80 of 101
“MR, SHERMAN objected …..
“MR. WILSON. Instead of an expense …..
“MR. MADISON suggested an enlargement of the motion into a power

to grant charters of incorporations where the interest of the U.S.
might require & the legislative provisions of individual States may
be incompetent. …. [Emphasis added].
“MR. RANDOLPH 2nd the proposition.
“MR. KING thought the power unnecessary. [Emphasis added].
“MR. WILSON. It is necessary to prevent a State from obstructing

the general welfare.
“MR. KING. The States will be prejudiced and divided into parties by it.
In Philad & New York, it will be referred to the establishment of a Bank,
which has been a subject of contention in these Cities. In other places
it will be referred to mercantile monopolies.
“MR. WILSON. Mentioned the importance of facilitating by canals, …. .

as to Banks, he did not think with MR. King that the power in that point
of view would excite the prejudices & parties apprehended.
As to mercantile monopolies, they are already included in the power
to regulate trade.
“Col. MASON was for limiting the power in the single case of Canals.
He was afraid of monopolies of every sort, which he did not think were
by any means already implied by the Constitution as supposed
by MR. Wilson. [Emphasis added].
“The motion as modified as to admit a distinct question specifying & limited

to the case of canals, [Emphasis added].
Page 81 of 101
N.H. no. Mas. no. Ct. no. N.J. no. PA. ay. Del. no. Md. no.
VA. ay. N.C. no. S.C. no. Geo. ay.
“The other part fell of course, as including the power [to grant charters
of incorporations] rejected.” [Emphasis added].
“Chief Justice Marshall” (supra.) made the following statement:
“The power of establishing a corporation is not a distinct sovereign power or end

of Government, but only the means of carrying into effect other powers which
are sovereign. Whenever it becomes an appropriate means of exercising any
of the powers given by the Constitution to the Government of the Union, it may
be exercised by that Government.
“If a certain means to carry into effect of any of the powers expressly given by
the Constitution to the Government of the Union be an appropriate measure,
not prohibited by the Constitution, the degree of its necessity is a question
of legislative discretion, not of judicial cognizance.”
He then expounds upon the “justification” of his statement.
As we see from the “Record” of the “Constitutional Convention” of 1787,

the “Delegation” of the states of the “Union” sitting in a “Constitutional Convention” has
defined the creation of “Charters of Corporations” to be an exercise of
a “Sovereign Power” that every state possessed. We also see that “George Mason IV,”
(sitting as a “Convention Delegate” for the “State of Virginia”) suggested that
this “Sovereign Power” of the states should be delegated to the government
of The United States of America in the form of a “Clause” to “Article I, Section 8” of
the proposed “Constitution.”
The fact that this “Sovereign Power” to create “Charters of Corporations” does not
appear in the present day “U.S. Constitution” is a fact that cannot be viewed to be
an “oversight,” (as suggested by “Chief Justice Marshall”). The “Founding Fathers”
Page 82 of 101
(sitting in a “Constitutional Convention”) were “deliberate” in their “raising,” “debating,”
and the “casting” of “votes of rejection” upon “Delegate Madison’s” “proposal”
to include the “Sovereign Power” to create “Charters of Incorporation” into their
proposed “Constitution” leaving this “Sovereign Power” out of reach
of the “U.S. Congress” to use as a “Law” that shall be “Necessary and Proper”
(for carrying into execution of the foregoing powers) as stated in “Article I, Section 8”
of the “Constitution” for “The United States of America.”
As the authority to create “Charters of Incorporation” was identified to be

a “Sovereign Power” by “Delegates” of the states of the “Union” (sitting in
a “Constitutional Convention”), those “Delegates” were speaking for the governments
of their states on the authority of their states. It is the “states” of the “Union” that
have “declared” that the creation of “Charters of Corporation” is an exercise
of “Sovereign Powers” which is to be “reserved” exclusively to their “states.”
The government of The United States of America had no “Powers” of its own at the time
of its founding. All “Powers” exercised were delegated to The United States of America
when those states were sitting in the “Confederation of States” of 1778 and in
the “Constitutional Convention” of 1787. For the government of The United States
of America to exercise the “Sovereign Power” to create “Charters of Incorporation,”
the “U.S. Congress” is “required” to obtained authority to do so from the states
via a “Constitutional Amendment.” [See “Article X” of the “Bill of Rights” to
the “Constitution” for “The United States of America”]:
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution,

nor prohibited by the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to
the people.” [Emphasis added].
Be advised that any “Power” taken under consideration during the creation of
a “Constitution” by a “Constitutional Convention” and being expressly “rejected” by
the “Delegates” of the states sitting in that “Convention,” is a statement that
the “Delegates” of the “Convention” have “reserved” to the states the “Sovereign Power”
Page 83 of 101
to create “Charters of Incorporation” and has “prohibited” its use by the government
of The United States of America.
All “Charters of Incorporation,” (as created by the “Congress” for The United States
of America), were created without a grant of authority by any
of the original “thirteen (13) states” sitting in “Convention” leaving
all those “Charters of Incorporation” to be “null and void” Ab Initio.
There is no lawful (“Charter of Incorporated”) “Federal Reserve Bank” and there

is no lawful (“Charter of Incorporated”) “Internal Revenue Service.” There is
no lawful (“Charter of Incorporated”) “U.S. Postal Service” nor is there
any other lawful “Congressional” created (“Charters of Incorporation”)
“Quasi Government Agencies.” The list of unlawful “Charters of Incorporation” just goes
on and on, just as feared by the “Delegates” of the states sitting in
the “Constitutional Convention” of 1787.
/////
/////
/////
Page 84 of 101
Oaths of Office
There are two (2) known groups of “people” whom occupies several seats
in both “Houses” of “Congress” for The United States of America that have “refused” to
accept an “Oath of Office” as required by “U.S. Constitution, Article VI, Section 1,
Clause 3”:
“The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, …. shall be bound by oath

or affirmation, to support this Constitution ….” [Emphasis added].
These two (2) groups are referred to as “Jesuits” /148 of the “Catholic Church,” /149
and as “Jews.” /150
As evidence by the following “Oaths,” (which they have submitted themselves to),
none of the “members” of these two (2) groups have the “Office Qualifications” /151
to hold any “Office of Trust” of the government of The United States of America:
148/ “https://tinyurl.com/lt62u8e”
149/ “https://tinyurl.com/d9rt2c4”
150/ “https://tinyurl.com/dyslaux”
151/ “This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and
all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be
the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in
the Constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.
“The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of

the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and
of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but
no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under
the United States.” [Emphasis added].
U.S. Constitution, Article VI, Sections, 2 & 3
Page 85 of 101
The Jewish Oath of Kol Nidre
All “Jews” have an obligation to observe the yearly “Yom Kippur” /152 wherein
the “Jews” cites twice (for a total of three (3) iterations), the below
Jewish “Kol Nidre”: /153
“All vows, and prohibitions, and oaths, and consecrations, and konams
and konasi and synonymous terms, that we may vow, or swear,
or consecrate, or prohibit upon ourselves, from the previous Day
of Atonement until this Day of Atonement and from this Day of
Atonement until the [next] Day of Atonement that will come for our
benefit. Regarding all of them, we repudiate them. All of them are
undone, abandoned, cancelled, null and void, not in force, and not in
effect. Our vows are no longer vows, and our prohibitions are no longer
prohibitions, and our oaths are no longer oaths.” [Emphasis added].
The Jewish Kol Nidre /ˈkɔːl nɪˈdreɪ/

(also known as Kol Nidrey or Kol Nidrei)
For a listing of “Jews” holding “Public Offices,” search the “Internet” for:
1. “Jews” in the “U.S. Congress”; /154 and
2. “Jews” as “Federal Judges.” /155
Comment: Unless shown otherwise, all “Jews” (who hold “Public Offices of Trust” of
the governments of the states and of The United States of America)
have “renounced” their “Oaths of Office” (implied or otherwise) to support
the “Constitutions” of “The United States of America” and of the several states of
the “Union,” and when “Jews” renounce their “Oaths of Office,” they renounce
152/ “https://tinyurl.com/mja63dh”
153/ “https://tinyurl.com/9b9nwrm”
154/ “https://tinyurl.com/y45t38p7”
155/ “https://tinyurl.com/y66hec4l”
Page 86 of 101
the “Public Office of Trust” of which they occupy. All “Jews” who occupy seats in
the U.S. Congress and of the Federal Courts shall be “expelled” from “Office” as
a matter of law of the “Constitution” for The United States of America.
/////
/////
/////
Page 87 of 101
The Jesuit Extreme Oath of Induction
The following is the “Jesuit Extreme Oath of Induction” given

to high ranking “Jesuits” only. This “Oath” is taken from the book
“Subterranean Rome” by Carlos Didier, translated from the “French,” and published
in “New York” in the year of 1843.
“When a Jesuit of the minor rank is to be elevated to command, he is conducted

into the Chapel of the Convent of the Order, where there are only three others
present, the principal or Superior standing in front of the altar. On either side
stands a monk, one of whom holds a banner of yellow and white, which are
the Papal colors, and the other a black banner with a dagger and red cross
above a skull and crossbones, with the word INRI, and below them the words
IUSTUM, NECAR, REGES, IMPIOUS. The meaning of which is: It is just
to exterminate or annihilate impious or heretical Kings, Governments,
or Rulers. Upon the floor is a red cross at which the postulant or candidate
kneels. The Superior hands him a small black crucifix, which he takes in his
left hand and presses to his heart, and the Superior at the same time presents
to him a dagger, which he grasps by the blade and holds the point against
his heart, the Superior still holding it by the hilt, and thus addresses
the postulant:
“Superior:
“My son, heretofore you have been taught to act the dissembler:
among Roman Catholics to be a Roman Catholic, and to be a spy even among
your own brethren; to believe no man, to trust no man. Among the Reformers,
to be a reformer; among the Huguenots, to be a Huguenot;
among the Calvinists, to be a Calvinist; among other Protestants, generally to
be a Protestant, and obtaining their confidence, to seek even to preach from
their pulpits, and to denounce with all the vehemence in your nature
our Holy Religion and the Pope; and even to descend so low as to become
a Jew among Jews, that you might be enabled to gather together
Page 88 of 101
all information for the benefit of your Order as a faithful soldier of the Pope.
[Emphases added].
“You have been taught to insidiously plant the seeds of jealousy and hatred
between communities, provinces, states that were at peace, and incite them
to deeds of blood, involving them in war with each other, and to create
revolutions and Civil Wars in countries that were independent and prosperous,
cultivating the arts and the sciences and enjoying the blessings of peace.
To take sides with the combatants and to act secretly with your brother Jesuit,
who might be engaged on the other side, but openly opposed to that with which
you might be connected, only that the Church might be the gainer in the end,
in the conditions fixed in the treaties for peace and that the end justifies
the means. [Emphasis added].
“You have been taught your duty as a spy, to gather all statistics,
facts and information in your power from every source; to ingratiate yourself
into the confidence of the family circle of Protestants and heretics of every
class and character, as well as that of the merchant, the banker, the lawyer,
among the schools and universities, in parliaments and legislatures,
and the judiciaries and councils of state, and to be all things to all men,
for the Pope's sake, whose servants we are unto death. [Emphasis added].
“You have received all your instructions heretofore as a novice, a neophyte,

and have served as co-adjurer, confessor and priest, but you have not yet
been invested with all that is necessary to command in the Army of Loyola
in the service of the Pope. You must serve the proper time as the instrument
and executioner as directed by your superiors; for none can command here
who has not consecrated his labors with the blood of the heretic;
for without the shedding of blood no man can be saved. Therefore, to fit
yourself for your work and make your own salvation sure, you will, in addition
to your former oath of obedience to your order and allegiance to the Pope,
repeat after me --- [Emphasis added].
The Extreme Oath of the Jesuits
“I, _ now, in the presence of Almighty God, the Blessed Virgin Mary,
the blessed Michael the Archangel, the blessed St. John the Baptist,
Page 89 of 101
the holy Apostles St. Peter and St. Paul and all the saints and sacred hosts
of heaven, and to you, my ghostly father, the Superior General of the Society
of Jesus, founded by St. Ignatius Loyola in the Pontificate of Paul the Third,
and continued to the present, do by the womb of the virgin, the matrix of God,
and the rod of Jesus Christ, declare and swear, that his holiness the Pope
is Christ's Vice-regent and is the true and only head of the Catholic
or Universal Church throughout the earth; and that by virtue of the keys
of binding and loosing, given to his Holiness by my Savior, Jesus Christ,
he hath power to depose heretical kings, princes, states, commonwealths,
and governments, all being illegal without his sacred confirmation and that they
may safely be destroyed. Therefore, to the utmost of my power I shall and will
defend this doctrine of his Holiness' right and custom against all usurpers
of the heretical or Protestant authority whatever, especially the Lutheran
of Germany, Holland, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, and the now pretended
authority and churches of England and Scotland, and branches of the same
now established in Ireland and on the Continent of America and elsewhere;
and all adherents in regard that they be usurped and heretical,
opposing the sacred Mother Church of Rome. I do now renounce and disown
any allegiance as due to any heretical king, prince or state named Protestants
or Liberals, or obedience to any of the laws, magistrates, or officers.
[Emphasis added].
“I do further declare that the doctrine of the churches of England and Scotland,
of the Calvinists, Huguenots and others of the name Protestants or Liberals
to be damnable and they themselves damned who will not forsake the same.
“I do further declare, that I will help, assist, and advise all or any
of his Holiness' agents in any place wherever I shall be, in Switzerland,
Germany, Holland, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, England, Ireland, or America,
or in any other Kingdom or territory I shall come to, and do my uttermost
to extirpate the heretical Protestants or Liberals' doctrines and to destroy
all their pretended powers, regal or otherwise. [Emphasis added].
“I do further promise and declare, that notwithstanding I am dispensed with,

to assume my religion heretical, for the propaganda of the Mother Church's
interest, to keep secret and private all her agents' counsels from time to time,
as they may entrust me and not to divulge, directly or indirectly, by word,
writing, or circumstance whatever; but to execute all that shall be proposed,
Page 90 of 101
given in charge or discovered unto me, by you, my ghostly father, or any
of this sacred covenant. [Emphasis added].
“I do further promise and declare, that I will have no opinion or will of my own,
or any mental reservation whatever, even as a corpse or cadaver
(perinde ac cadaver), but will unhesitatingly obey each and every command
that I may receive from my superiors in the Militia of the Pope and
of Jesus Christ. [Emphasis added].
“That I may go to any part of the world withersoever I may be sent,

to the frozen regions of the North, the burning sands of the desert of Africa,
or the jungles of India, to the centers of civilization of Europe, or to the wild
haunts of the barbarous savages of America, without murmuring or repining,
and will be submissive in all things whatsoever communicated to me.
[Emphasis added].
“I furthermore promise and declare that I will, when opportunity present,

make and wage relentless war, secretly or openly, against all heretics,
Protestants and Liberals, as I am directed to do, to extirpate and exterminate
them from the face of the whole earth; and that I will spare neither age,
sex or condition; and that I will hang, waste, boil, flay, strangle, and bury alive
these infamous heretics, rip up the stomachs and wombs of their women
and crush their infants' heads against the walls, in order to annihilate forever
their execrable race. That when the same cannot be done openly, I will
secretly use the poisoned cup, the strangulating cord, the steel of the poniard
or the leaden bullet, regardless of the honor, rank, dignity, or authority of
the person or persons, whatever may be their condition in life, either public
or private, as I at any time may be directed so to do by any agent of the Pope
or Superior of the Brotherhood of the Holy Faith, of the Society of Jesus.
[Emphasis added].
“In confirmation of which, I hereby dedicate my life, my soul and all

my corporal powers, and with this dagger which I now receive, I will subscribe
my name written in my own blood, in testimony thereof; and should I prove
false or weaken in my determination, may my brethren and fellow soldiers
of the Militia of the Pope cut off my hands and my feet, and my throat from ear
to ear, my belly opened and sulphur burned therein, with all the punishment
that can be inflicted upon me on earth and my soul be tortured by demons
in an eternal hell forever!
Page 91 of 101
“All of which, I, _, do swear by the Blessed Trinity and blessed Sacraments,
which I am now to receive, to perform and on my part to keep inviolable;
and do call all the heavenly and glorious host of heaven to witness
the blessed Sacrament of the Eucharist, and witness the same further with
my name written and with the point of this dagger dipped in my own blood
and sealed in the face of this holy covenant.
(He receives the wafer from the Superior and writes his name with the point
of his dagger dipped in his own blood taken from over his heart.)
“Superior:
“You will now rise to your feet and I will instruct you in the Catechism necessary
to make yourself known to any member of the Society of Jesus belonging
to this rank.
“In the first place, you, as a Brother Jesuit, will with another mutually make
the ordinary sign of the cross as any ordinary Roman Catholic would;
then one cross his wrists, the palms of his hands open, and the other
in answer crosses his feet, one above the other; the first points with forefinger
of the right hand to the center of the palm of the left, the other with
the forefinger of the left hand points to the center of the palm of the right;
the first then with his right hand makes a circle around his head, touching it;
the other then with the forefinger of his left hand touches the left side of
his body just below his heart; the first then with his right hand draws it across
the throat of the other, and the latter then with a dagger down the stomach
and abdomen of the first. The first then says Iustum; and the other
answers Necar; the first Reges. The other answers Impious. (The meaning
of which has already been explained.) The first will then present a small piece
of paper folded in a peculiar manner, four times, which the other will cut
longitudinally and on opening the name Jesu will be found written upon
the head and arms of a cross three times. You will then give and receive
with him the following questions and answers:
“Question — From whither do you come?
Page 92 of 101
“Answer — The Holy faith.
“Question — Whom do you serve?
“Answer — The Holy Father at Rome, the Pope, and the Roman Catholic
Church Universal throughout the world.
“Question — Who commands you?
“Answer — The Successor of St. Ignatius Loyola, the founder of

the Society of Jesus or the Soldiers of Jesus Christ.
“Question — Who received you?
“Answer — A venerable man in white hair.
“Question — How?
“Answer — With a naked dagger, I kneeling upon the cross beneath the banners
of the Pope and of our sacred order.
“Question — Did you take an oath?
“Answer — I did, to destroy heretics and their governments and rulers,

and to spare neither age, sex nor condition. To be as a corpse without
any opinion or will of my own, but to implicitly obey my Superiors in all things
without hesitation of murmuring. [Emphasis added].
“Question — Will you do that?
“Answer — I will.
“Question — How do you travel?
“Answer — In the bark of Peter the fisherman.
“Question — Whither do you travel?
“Answer — To the four quarters of the globe.
“Question — For what purpose?
“Answer — To obey the orders of my general and Superiors and execute the will
of the Pope and faithfully fulfill the conditions of my oaths.
Page 93 of 101
“Question — Go ye, then, into all the world and take possession of all lands
in the name of the Pope. He who will not accept him as the Vicar of Jesus
and his Vice-regent on earth, let him be accursed and exterminated.”
[Emphasis added].
--------------------------------- End ---------------------------------
Comment: All “Catholics” (who hold “Public Offices of Trust” of the governments of
the states and of The United States of America) have renounced
their “Oaths of Office” (implied or otherwise) to support the Constitutions
of The United States of America and of the several states of the Union. As they
have renounced all “Oaths of Office,” they have renounced the “Public Office
of Trust” of which they occupy.
President “Joseph Robinette Biden Jr.” (and most of his “Cabinet Members”
and “Military Commanders”) are of the “Catholic Religion” and they have given
their “Allegiance” to the “Pope” and the country of “Vatican City State.”
President “Joseph Robinette Biden Jr.” holds the “religious order” of “Jesuit” and has
given his “Allegiance” to the “Pope” as mandated by his “Oath of the Jesuits.”
Through that “Jesuit Oath,” he has renounced his “Oath of Office” to support
the “Constitution” for “The United States of America.”
Using his “Office of President” of “The United States of America,”

President “Joseph Robinette Biden Jr.” is executing “Orders” as given to him
by the “Pope,” that is to destroy the “Christians” of “America” and the “Laws”
and “Commandments” of their “Heavenly Father,” the “I AM THE I AM.”
The “people,” in and through their “Constitutional Conventions,” did adopt and ratify
the Constitution for The United States of America wherein they did declare
in Article I, Section 5, Clause 1 that each “House” shall be sole “Judge” of
the “qualifications” of its “Members”:
“Each House shall be the judge of the elections, returns and qualifications
of its own members, and a majority of each shall constitute a quorum
to do business; but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day, and may
Page 94 of 101
be authorized to compel the attendance of absent members, in such manner,
and under such penalties as each House may provide.” [Emphasis added]
Do you not see why the multitude of “Complaints” as filed within the “Federal Courts”
and “Courts” of the “states” challenging the “Office Qualifications” of “Members”
and “Candidates” of the “U.S. Congress” are always “Dismissed”?
The “Judicial Branch” of government is “Barred” by “Article I, Section 5, Clause 1” of
the “Constitution” for “The United States of America” to take “Jurisdiction” over
such “Litigation.” [Emphasis added]
This “Clause 1” of the “U.S. Constitution” is not an authorization for the members of
the “U.S. Congress” to seat a “Nominee” for either “House” (who is absent of
the required “qualifications” as set forth in the U.S. Constitution), but to the contrary;
it is a “mandate” for both “Houses” of “Congress” to “investigate,” “verify,”
and “record” each “Members” constitutional “qualifications”:
a. Member candidate has attain the age twenty-five (25) years for
the House of Congress; /156 and
b. Member candidate has been seven (7) years a Citizen of the United States
for the House of Congress; /157 and
c. Member candidate was not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that state

in which he shall be chosen for the House of Congress or for
the U.S. Senate; /158 and
d. Member candidate has attain the age thirty (30) years for the U.S. Senate; /159
and
156/ U.S. Const., Art I, Section 2, Clause 2

158/ U.S. Const., Art I, Section 2, Clause 2 and U.S. Const., Art I, Section 3, Clause 3
Page 95 of 101
e. Member candidate has been nine (9) years a Citizen of the United States for
the U.S. Senate; /160 and
f. Member candidate has taken an “Oath or Affirmation” to support

the Constitution for The United States of America. /161
All “Catholics” (whom occupies seats in the “U.S. Congress” and of

the “Federal Courts”) shall be “expelled” from “Office” for renouncing
their “Office of Trust” when they renounced their “Oath of Office.”
For a listing of “Catholics” holding “Public Offices,” search the “Internet” for:
1. “Catholics” in the “U.S. Congress”; /162 and
2. “Catholics” as “Federal Judges.” /163
Within the “Catholic Church,” /164 the rights (“duties”) of the “Catholic Laity” /165
in regards to the “Church” are found in the “Code of Canon Law.” /166 A new “Code of
Canon Law” was promulgated in 1983 to incorporate teachings from
the “Second Vatican Council.” /167 In particular, “Canons 224-231” /168 of
the “1983 Code” outlining the general and specific “canonical rights” of “lay persons” in
the “Catholic Church.”
161/ U.S. Const., Art VI, Section 1, Clause 2
162/ “https://tinyurl.com/y6dtej2t” see also “https://tinyurl.com/y4x3awal” and “https://tinyurl.com/y5xpov3o.”
163/ “https://tinyurl.com/uul7axk” see also “PDF Document” “https://tinyurl.com/y3z5ufjm.”

164/ “https://tinyurl.com/d9rt2c4”
165/ “https://tinyurl.com/y67nvya2”
166/ “https://tinyurl.com/3o2py”
167/ “https://tinyurl.com/d3otdtw”
168/ “https://tinyurl.com/y6t6v9fg”
Page 96 of 101
Under the “Code of Canon Law,” the “Catholic laity Allegiance” is with the “Papacy”
of “Vatican City State,” not with the “people” of “The United States of America.”
(see “Vatican Council II, Lumen Gentium § 12” /169).
Furthermore, as the “Jesuits” are of a “Secret Society” which was founded

by “Ignatius of Loyola” and “six companions” with the approval of “Pope Paul III”
in the year of 1540 - and as there are no means available by which to identify those who
are “Jesuits” from those who are “lay persons” of the “Catholic Church,” a presumption
must exist that all “Catholics” are “Jesuits” or “Jesuit Sympathizers” and they need to
be treated as such.
Be advised that all the assassinated “Presidents” of “The United States of America,”
from “Abraham Lincoln” to “John F. Kennedy” appears to have been “Assassinated”
by “Jesuits” of the “Catholic Church.” The common theme for all those “Assassinations”
is the control of the issuance of “Money” for the nation of The United States of America.
Those “Assassinations” began with the issuance of “Green Backs”
by “Abraham Lincoln” to the issuance of “United States Notes” by “John F. Kennedy.”
/////
/////
/////
169/ “https://tinyurl.com/yxnppx9u”
Page 97 of 101
Conclusion
This “Document” was written with the view of “Originalism.” /170
“Originalism,” in all its various forms, is predicated on a specific view of what

the “Constitution” is; a view articulated by “Chief Justice John Marshall” in the case
of “Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803)”:
“[T]he Constitution organizes the government, and assigns to different

departments their respective powers. It may either stop here; or establish
certain limits not to be transcended by those departments. The government of
the United States is of the latter description. The powers of the legislature
are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken or forgotten,
the Constitution is written. To what purpose are powers limited, and to
what purpose is that limitation committed to writing; if these limits may,
at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained?”
“Originalism” assumes that “Marbury” (supra.) is correct: the “Constitution” is

the operating “Charter” granted to government by the people, as per
the “Preamble” /171 to the “United States Constitution,” and its written nature
introduces a certain discipline into its interpretation. “Originalism” further assumes that
the need for such a “Written Charter” was derived from the perception (on the part
of the “Framers”) of the abuses of power under the (unwritten) “British Constitution,”
under which the “Constitution” was essentially whatever “Parliament” decided
170/ “https://tinyurl.com/3w8tyfhu”
171/ The “Preamble” to the “Constitution” for “The United States of America” is a “Preamble” which no
longer appears within most government publications of the “Constitution”:
“We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice,
insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote for the general welfare,
and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and or posterity, do ordain and establish
this Constitution for The United States of America.”
Page 98 of 101
it should be. In writing out a “Constitution” which explicitly granted the government
certain authorities, (and withheld from it others), and in which power was balanced
between multiple “Agencies” (the “Presidency,” two (2) Chambers of “Congress” and
the “Supreme Court” at the national level, and “state governments” of
the “United States” with similar branches), the intention of the “Framers” was
to restrain government - “Originalists” argue, and the value of such a “Document”
is “nullified” if that “Document's” meaning is not fixed. As one “Author” stated:
“If the Constitution can mean anything, then the Constitution is reduced
to meaninglessness.”
“That certain words may have developed different meanings over time
is inadmissible as an argument for construing the “Constitution.”
For this particular procedure would amount, not to reinterpretation,
but to misinterpretation. To be sure, in the course of time, as is often the case
with language, the meaning of words or terms is changed; but, even so,
the meaning of the “Constitution” does not change “pari passu.” /172
“The meaning of constitutional provisions is changeless; . . . only their application

. . . is extensible. /173 What the “Constitution” meant once adopted it still means
for the purpose of interpretation, /174 notwithstanding the swings in public opinion
at home, and abroad, /175 changes in the ebb and flow of economic events, /176
or shifts in public policy. /177
172/ See N. Chipman, “Principles of Government: a Treatise on Free Institutions” (1833), at “254”.
173/ See Home Building & Loan Association v. Blaisdell, 290 U. S. 398, 451 (1934)
(Sutherland, J., dissenting).
174/ See Smiley v. Holm, 280 U.S. 353, 365 (1932). Accord, South Carolina v. United States,
190 U.S. 437, 448 –49 (1905).
175/ See Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 383, 426 (1857).
176/ See West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish, 300 U.S. 379 (1937)
(Sutherland, J., dissenting).
177/ See Patton v. United States, 281 U.S. 276, 306 (1930). “For ’[p]olicy and humanity’ dangerous
guides in the discussion of legal proposition. He follows them far is apt to bring back the means
of error and delusion.” Edwards v. Kearny, 96 U.S. 595, 604 (1878).
Page 99 of 101
Fair Use Notice Legal Disclaimer
The information contained in this “Document” is provided on an “as is” basis with
no guarantees of completeness, accuracy, usefulness or timeliness and without
warranties of any kind whatsoever, express or implied.
This “Document” may contain copyrighted material, the use of which may not have been
specifically authorized by the copyright owner. This material is available in an effort
to explain issues relevant to the “Amendments” to the “Constitution”
for “The United States of America” and other references or to illustrate the use
and benefits of an educational tool. The material of this “Document” is distributed
without profit for research and educational purposes. Only small portions of the original
work are being used and those, to best of knowledge, could not be used easily
to duplicate the original work.
This should constitute a “fair use” of any such copyrighted material referenced
and provided for by in “17 U.S. Code § 107” (“Limitations on exclusive rights:
Fair use”). /178
/////
/////
/////
178/ https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/107
Page 100 of 101

Respectively Submitted
Gordon Warren Epperly

P.O. Box 34358
Juneau, Alaska 99803
Contact me for the need of the “Password” to unlock this “Writing.”

E-mail: enter7740@14th-amendment.com
Page 101 of 101

Non-Existant Amendments To The Constitution For The United States of America

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Non-Existant Amendments To The Constitution For The United States of America

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Non-Existent Amendments

Gordon Warren Epperly

© Copyright 2022 - All Rights Reserved

U.S. Constitution, Article V

 Thirteenth Amendment . . . . . . . Pg. 11  Political Question . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pg. 32

o The Court of “Coleman v. Miller”

Pages of Interest: o Corporations . . . . . . . . . . . . Pg. 79

o Oaths of Office . . . . . . . . . . . Pg. 85

o Negroes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pg. 03  The Jesuit Extreme Oath

 Insurrection (Donald J. Trump) . . Pg. 22

o Federal aid for

o Use of militia and armed forces

o Interference with State

This Preamble is not found within many publications of the Constitution

There are two phrases in the Preamble that will be addressed:

First - “We the People of the United States”; and

— Dred Scott, 60 U.S. at 403.

— Dred Scott, 60 U.S. at 404–05.

In regard to Undocumented Immigrants, the Court of “United States v. Portillo-Munoz,

“The deliberations of the Constitutional Convention of 1787 were held

Notwithstanding the “Married Women’s Property Acts” /6 as adopted by several states of

Notwithstanding the absence of a “Constitutional Amendment,” the “U.S. Congress”

Naturalization Act of 1790 [“1 Stat. 103”]

Naturalization Act of 1795 [“1 Stat. 414”]

The precedence found to purge fraudulent Amendments to the Constitution

16/ see “https://tinyurl.com/yym9xo3d”

17/ see “https://tinyurl.com/4ntnkf8b”

Question: “Who has the qualifications to state otherwise”?

1. No Amendment may violate International Law as that Law applies

2. The proposed “Amendment” was not presented to the President

The wording of U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 7, Clause 3 makes it clear

“Every …. resolution … to which the concurrence of the Senate and

“We think amendments to the constitution …. shall be submitted separately,

State v. Timme, /23 54 Wis. 318, 11 N.W. 785, 790

See also the below supporting Cases:

a. Kerby v. Luhrs, /24 36 P.2d 549 (Ariz. 1934);

23/ URL not located

26/ URL not located

27/ URL not located

29/ URL not located

30/ URL not located

31/ URL not located

32/ URL not located

33/ URL not located

34/ URL not located

35/ URL not located

37/ URL not located

38/ URL not located

40/ URL not located

a. “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject

Fourteenth (14th) Amendment, Section 1

Fourteenth (14th) Amendment, Section 1

Fourteenth (14th) Amendment, Section 1

Fourteenth (14th) Amendment, Section 1

e. “Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according

Fourteenth (14th) Amendment, Section 2

Fourteenth (14th) Amendment, Section 2

g. “No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector

Fourteenth (14th) Amendment, Section 3

Fourteenth (14th) Amendment, Section 4

6. The [defacto] U.S. Congress was without authority to substitute

7. The [defacto] U.S. Congress was without authority to authorize non-citizens

The Insurrection Act

10 U.S. Code § 251 to 254b - Renumbered §§ 240a to 240f