8/7/2019 15641-15646

1/6HeinOnline -- 113 Cong. Rec. 15641 1967

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

I f mankind is ever to abolish war fromthe face of t he earth, we first mustbreak down the barriers of mistrust andsuspicion among the peoples of theworld. There is no better way to accomplish this than through just such programs as this one conducted by theAmerican Council of Young PoliticalLeaders.These young people will be the leaders of the world in years to come. Theywill be better leaders, more understanding and tolerant leaders, i f they are ableto expand their knowledge of other nations, other peoples, and other politicalsystems.This is why, Mr. Speaker, I am sopleased with the work being done bythe American Council of Young Political Leaders. They have my wholeheartedsupport in their program to furtherworld understanding.THE 14TH AMENDMENT-EQUALPROTECTION LAW OR TOOL OFUSURPATIONMr. PRYOR. Mr. Speaker, I askunanimous consent that the gentlemanfrom Louisiana [Mr. RARICK] may extend his remarks at this paint in theRECORD and include extraneous matter.The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is thereobjection to the request of the gentlemanfrom Arkansas?There was no objection.Mr. RARICK. Mr. Speaker, arrogantlyignoring clearcut expressions in the Constitution of the United States, the declared intent of i ts drafters notwithstanding, our unelected Federal judgesread out prohibitions of the Constitutionof the United States by adopting thefuzzy haze of the 14th amendment tolegislate their personal ideas, prejudices,theories, guilt complexes, aims, andwhims.Through the cooperation of intellectual educators, we have subjected ourselves to accept destructive use andmeaning of words and phrases. Weblindly accept new meanings andchanged values to alter our tradi tionalthoughts.We have tolerantly permitted the habi tua l misuse of words to serve as avehicle to abandon our foundations andgoals. Thus, the present use and expansion of the 14th amendment is a shamserving as a crutch and hoodwink to precipitate a quasi-legal approach for overthrow of the tender balances and protections of limitation found in the Constitution.But, interestingly enough, the 14thamendment-whether ratified or not -was but the expression of emotional outpouring of public sentiment following theWar Between the States.Its obvious purpose and intent was butto free human beings from ownership asa chattel by other humans. Its aim wasno more than to free the slaves.As our politically appointed Federaljudiciary proceeds down their chosen

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

H. CON. RES. 208A concurrent resolution to expose the unconstltutlonallty of th e 14th admendmentto the Constitution of th e United States;to Interpose th e sovereignty of th e Stateof Louisiana against th e execut ion of saidamendment In this S ta te ; t o memorlallzeth e Congress of th e United States to repe al I ts joint resolution of JUly 28, 1868,declaring that said amendment ha d beenratified; and to provide for th e distribution of certi fied copies of this resolutionWhereas th e purported 14th Amendmentto th e United States Constitution was neverlawfully adopted in accordance with th e requirements of th e Uni ted Sta tes Const it ution because eleven states of th e Union weredeprived of their equal suffrage In th e Senate in violation of Art ic le V, when elevensouthern states, InclUding Louisiana, wereexcluded from dellberatlon and decision Inth e adopt ion o f th e Joint Resolution proposing said 14th Amendment; said Resolutionwas no t presented to the President of th eUnited States In order that th e same shouldtake effect, as required by Artic le I , Section7; th e proposed amendment was no t ratified by three-fourths of th e states, bu t toth e contrary fifteen states of the thenthi rty-seven states of th e Union rejected th eproposed 14th Amen dment between th edates of Its submission to th e states by th eSecretary of State on June 16, 1866 andMarch 24, 1868, thereby nUllifying saidResolution and making It impossible for ratification by th e consti tutionally requiredthree-fourths of such s ta tes; said southernstates which were denied their equal suff ra ge In th e Senate had been recognized byproclamations of th e President of th e UnitedStates to have duly const itu ted governmentswith al l th e powers which belong to freestates of th e Union, and th e Legislatures ofseven of said southern states had ratified th e13th Amendment which wou ld have f ai ledof ratification bu t for th e ratification of saidseven southern states; andWhereas th e Reconstruction Acts of Congress unlawfully overthrew their existing

governments, removed their lawfully constituted legislatures by mlll tary force and replaced them with rump legislatures whichcarried ou t mllltary orders and pretendedto ratify th e 14th Amendment; andWhereas In spite of th e fact that th e Secretary of State in his first proclamation,on July 20, 1868, expressed doubt as towhether three-fourths of th e required statesha d ratified th e 14th Amendment, Congressnevertheless adopted a resolution on July 28,1868, unlawfully declaring that three-fourthsof th e states ha d ratified th e 14th Amendment and directed th e Secretary of State toso proclaim, said Joint Resolution of Congress and th e resulting proclamation of the

Secretary of State included .the purportedratifications of th e military enforced rumplegislatures of t en s ou thern states whoselawful legislatures had preViously rejectedsaid 14th Amendment, and also Includedpurported rat if ica tions by th e legislaturesof the States of Ohio and New Jersey althoughthey ha d withdrawn their legislative ratifications several months previously, al l ofwhich proves absolutely that said 14thAmendment was no t adopted in accordancewith th e mandatory consti tutional requirements set forth In Art ic le V of th e Constitution and therefore th e Constitution itselfstrikes with nulllty th e purported 14thAmendment.Now therefore be It resolved by th e Legislature of Louisiana, th e House of Representatives and th e Senate concurring:(1) Tha t t he Legislature go on record asexposing th e unconstl tutlonall ty of th e 14thAmendment, and Interposes th e sovereigntyof th e State of Louisiana against th e execution of said 14th Amendment aga inst th eState of Louisiana and It s people;(2) Tha t t he Legislature of Louisiana opposes th e use of th e Inval ld 14th amendment by th e Federal courts to Impose furtherunlawful edicts and hardships on i ts people;(3) That th e Congress of th e United Statesbe memoriallzed by this Legislature to repealits unlawful Joint Resolut ion of July 28,1868, declaring that three-fourths of th estates had ratified th e 14th Amendment toth e United States Constitution;(4) That the Legislatures of th e otherstates of th e Union be memoriallzed to giveserious study and consideration to take simIlar action against th e valldity of th e 14thAmendment and to uphold and suppor t th eConst itut ion of th e United States whichstrikes said 14th Amendment with nUllity;and(5) That copies of this Resolution, dulycertified, together with a copy of th e treatiseon "The Unconstitutionallty of th e 14thAmendment" by JUdge L. H. Pe rez, be forwarded to th e Governors and Secretaries ofState of each s ta te in th e Union, and to t heSecretaries of th e United States Senate andHouse of Congress, and t o the Louisiana Congressional delegation, a copy hereof to bepubllshed i n t he Congressional Record.VAIL M. DELONY,Speaker 01 the House 01 Representatives.C. C. AYCOCK,

Lieutenant Governor and President01 the Senate.

THE 14TH AMENDMENT Is UNCONSTITUTIONALThe purpo rt ed 14th Amendment to th eUnited States Consti tution is and should beheld to be ineffective, invalld, nUll, void andunconstitutional for th e follOWing reasons:1. The Joint Resolution proposing saidAmendment was no t submitted to or adoptedby a Constitutional Congress. Article I, Section 3, and Artic le V of th e U.S. Constitution.2. The Joint Resolution was no t submittedto th e President for his approval. Art ic le I ,Section 7.3. The proposed 14th Amendment was re j ec ted by more than one-fourth of al l th eStates then in the Union, and it was neverrat i fied by three-fourths of al l th e States inth e Union. Article V.I. THE UNCONSTITUTIONAL CONGRESSThe U.S. Constitution provides:Ar ti cle I , section 3. "The Senat e of th eUnited States shall be composed of two senators from each State . "Article V provides: "No State, without it sconsent, shall be deprived of it s equal suffrage in th e Senate."The fact that 23 Senators had been unlawful ly excluded from th e U.S. Senate, In orderto secure R two-thirds vote for adoption ofth e Joint Resolution propos ing th e 14thAmendment Is shown by Resolutions of pro-

8/7/2019 15641-15646

2/6HeinOnline -- 113 Cong. Rec. 15642 1967

15642 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE June 13 , 1967test adopted by th e following State Legislatures:The New Jersey Legislature by Resolutionof March 27, 1868, protested as follows:"The sald proposed amendment no t havingye t received th e assen t o f th e three-fourthsof th e s tates, which Is necessary to make Itvalid, t he natur al and constitutional rightof this state to Withdraw it s assent isundeniable .""That It being necessary by the consti tution that every amendment t o th e sameshould be proposed by two-thi rd s o f bothhouses of congress, th e authors of saIdproposition, for th e purpose of securing th eassent of th e requisite majority, determinedto , and did, exclude from th e said two houseseighty representatIves from eleven states ofth e union, upon the pretence that there wereno s uc h s ta te s In th e Union; but, findingthat two-thirds of th e remainder of th e saidhouses could no t be brought to assent toth e saId proposition, they deliberately formedan d carried ou t th e design of mutilating th eintegrity of th e United States senate, an dWithout any pr etex t o r justification, otherthan th e possession of th e power, without th eright, an d In palpable violation of th e constitution, ejected a member of their own body,representing this state, an d thus practicallydenied to New Jersey it s equal suffrage Inth e senate, and thereby nominally securedth e vote of two-thirds of th e said houses." 1The Alabama Legislature protested againstbeing deprived of representation in th e Senat e of th e U.S. Congress.'The Texas Legis lature by Resolution onOctober 15, 1866, protested as follows:"The amendment to th e Constitution proposed by this joint r esolut ion as ArticleXIV i s presented to the Legislature of Texasfor I ts action thereon, under Article V of thatConstitu tion. This Article V, providing th emode of making amendments to that instrument, contemplates th e par ticipa t ion by a llth e Sta tes through the ir representatives inCongress, in proposing amendments. As representatives .f rom near ly one-third of th estates were excluded from th e Congress proposing th e amendments, the consti tut ionalreqUirement was no t complled With; It wasviolated in le tter and in spirit; an d th e proposing of these amendments to States whichwere excluded from all participation in theirinitiation in Congress, is a nullity."The Arkansas Legislature, by Resolution onDecember 17, 1866, protested as follows:"The Const itution authorized two-thirdsof both houses of Congress to propose amendment s; and, as eleven States were excludedfrom dellberation and decision upon th e onenow submitted, th e conclusion Is Inevitablethat i t is no t proposed by legal authority,bu t In palpable v io la tion of th e Constitution.""The Georgia Legislature, by Resolution onNovember 9,1866, protested as follows:"Since th e reorganization of th e State government, Georgia has elected Senators andRepresentatives. So ha s every other State.They have been arbitrarily refused admissionto their seats, no t on th e ground that th equallficatlons of th e members elected did no tconform to th e fourth paragraph, second section, first article of th e Constitution, bu tbecause t he ir r ight of representat ion wasdenied by a portion of th e States havingequal but no t greater rights than themselves.They have In fact been forcibly excluded;and, inasmuch a s a ll legislative power granted by th e States to th e Congress Is defined,and thi s power of exclusion Is no t among th epowers expressly or by Impllcatlon, th e as semblage, at th e capitol, of representativesfrom a portion of th e States, to th e exclusionof th e representat ives of another portion,

1 New Jersey Acts, March 27, 1868.2 Alabama House Journal 1866, pp. 210-213. Texas House Journal, 1866, p. 577.Arkansas House Journal, 1866, p. 287.

cannot be a constitutional Congress, whenth e representation of each State forms anintegral part of the whole."This amendment Is t endered to Georgiafor ratification, under that power in the Constitution which authorizes two-thirds of th eCongress to propose amendments. We haveendeavored to establlsh that Georgia ha d aright, In th e first place, as a part of th e Congress, to ac t upon the question , 'Shall theseamendments be proposed?' Every other excluded State had th e same right."The first constitutional priVilege ha s beenarbitrarily denied. Had these amendmentsbeen submitted to a constitutional Congress,they never would have been proposed to th eStates. Two-thirds of th e whole Congressnever would have proposed to eleven Statesvoluntarily to reduce their polltlcal power inth e Union, an d at th e same time, disfranchise th e larger portion of th e Intellect, in tegrity and patriotism of eleven co-equalStates." 5The Florida Legislature, by Resolution ofDecember 5, 1866, protested as follows:"Let this alteration be made in th e organicsystem and some new and more startllng demands mayor may no t be required by th epredominant party previous to allowing th ete n States now unlawfUlly and unconst itutionally deprived of t he ir r igh t of representation to enter th e Halls of th e NationalLegislature. Their right to representation isguaranteed by the Constitution of this countr y an d there is no act, no t even that ofrebeillon, can deprive them of Its exercise." The South Carolina Legislature by Resolution of November 27, 1866, protested as follows:"Eleven of th e Southern States, IncludingSouth Carollna, are deprived of their representation in Congress. Although their Senators an d Representatives have be en d ul yelected and ha ve prese nt ed themselvesfor th e purpose of taking their seats, theircredentials have, in most Instances, been laidupon th e table without being read, o r h av ebeen referred to a committee , who havefailed to make any report on th e subject. Inshort, Congress ha s refused to exercise it sConstitutional functions, and decide eitherupon th e election, th e return , or th e quallficatlon of these selected by th e States an dpeople to represent us. Some of th e Senatorsan d RepresentatiVes from th e SouthernStates were prepared to t ak e th e test oath,but even these have been persistently Ignored, an d k ep t ou t of th e seats to whichthey were ent it led under th e Constitutionand laws."Hence this amendment ha s no t been proposed by 'two-thirds of both Houses' of alegally constituted Congress, an d is not, constitutionally or legitimately, before a singleLegislature for ratification.'"The North Carollna Legis lature protestedby Resolution of December 6, 1866 as follows:"The Federal Constitution declares, in substance, that Congress shall consist of a Houseof Representatives, composed o f membe rsapportioned among th e respective States inth e ratio of their population, and of a Senate, composed of two members from eachState. And in the Article which concernsAmendments, i t is expressly provided that'n o state, wit hout I t c onse nt, sha ll be d eprived of its equal suffrage in th e Senate.'The contemplated Amendment was no t proposed to the States by a Congress thus constituted. At th e time of Its adoption, th eeleven seceding States were deprived of represen ta tion both In th e Senate and House,although they all, except t he S ta te of Texas,had Senators and Representatives dulyelected and claiming their privileges under Georgia House Journal, November 9, 1866,pp.66-67. Florida House Journal, 1866, p. 76.7 South Carollna House Journal, 1866, pp.33 and 34.

th e Constitution. In con sequence of t hi s,these States ha d no voice on th e importantquestion of proposing th e Amendment. Hadthey been allowed to give their votes, th eproposition would doubtless have failed tocommand th e required two-thirds ma -jority.

If th e votes of these States are necessary toa valld ratification of th e Amendment, theywere equally necessary on th e quest ion o fproposing i t to th e Sta tes; for It wou ld b edifficult, in th e opinion of th e Committee, toshow by what process in logic, men of Intelligence could arrive at a different conclusion." II . JOINT RESOLUTION INEFFECTIVEArticle I, Section 7 prOVides that no t onlyevery bill whi ch sha ll ha ve been passed byth e House of Representatives and th e Senateof th e United States Congress, but that:"Every order, resolution, or vote to whichth e concurrence of th e Senate and House ofRepresentatives may be necessary (excepton a question of adjournment) sha ll be presented to th e President of th e United States;and before th e same sha ll take effect, shallbe approved by him, or being disapproved byhim shall be repassed by two-thirds of th eSenate and House of Representatives, according to the rules and l imitat ions prescribed in th e case of a bill ."The Joint Resolution proposing th e 14thAmendment 0 was never p resented to th ePresident of th e United States for his ap proval, as President Andrew Johnson statedin hi s message on June 22, 1866.10 Therefore,th e Joint Resolution did no t take effect.m. PROPOSED AMENDMENT NEVER RAT IF IED BY

THREE-FOURTHS OF TH E STATES1. Pretermitting th e ineffectiveness of saidresolution, as above, fifteen (15) States outof th e then thirty-seven (37) States of th eUnion rejec ted th e proposed 14th Amendment between th e d at e o f Its submission toth e Sta te s b y th e Secretary of State onJune 16, 1866 and March 24, 1868, therebyfurther nullifying said resolution a nd mak ing it Impossible fo r it s ratification by th econstitutionally required three-fourths ofsuch States, as shown by th e rejectionsthereof by th e Legislatures of th e followingstates:Texas rejected th e 14th Amendment onOctober 27, 1866.11Georgia rejected th e 14th Amendment onNovember 9, 1866."Florida rejected th e 14th Amendment on

December 6, 1866."Alabama rejected th e 14th Amendment onDecember 7, 1866.14North Carollna rejected th e 14th Amendmen t onDecember 14, 1866.10Arkansas rejected th e 14th Amendment onDecember 17, 1866.' South Carolina rejected th e 14th Amendment on December 20, 1866."Kentucky rejected th e 14th Amendment onJanuary 8, 1867." North Carollna Senate Journal , 1866-67,pp. 92 and 93.o 14 Stat. 358 etc.,. Senate Journal, 39th Congress, 1s t sessn.p. 563, and House Journal p. 889.11 House Journal 1866, pp. 578-584-SenateJournal 1866, p. 471.

12 House Journal 1866, p. 68-Senate Journa l 1866, p. 72.. 1. House Journal 1866, p. 78-Senate Jour na l 1866, p. 8."House Journal 1866, pp. 21Q-213-8enateJournal 1866, p. 183.15 House Journal 1866-1867, p. 183-SenateJournal 1866-1867, p. 138.,. House Journal 1866, pp. 288-291-8enateJournal 1866, p. 262.17 House Journal 1866, p. 284-Senate Journa l 1886, p. 230.,. House Journal 1867, p. 60-8enate Journa l 1867, p. 62.

8/7/2019 15641-15646

3/6HeinOnline -- 113 Cong. Rec. 15643 1967

June 13, 1967 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE 15643

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

"A singular contradiction is apparent here.Congress declares these local State governmen ts to be 111egal governments, and thenprovides tha.t these lllegal governments shallbe carried on by federal officers, who are toperform th e very dut ie s on Its own officersby this 111egal State authority. I t certainlywould be a novel spectacle If Congress shouldattempt to carryon a legal State governmentby th e agency of Its own officers. It is ye tmore strange that Congress attempts to sustain and carry on an 111egal State government by th e same federal agency.u. . . .

"I n all these States there are existing con;.stitutlons, framed in th e accustomed way byth e people. Congress, however, declares thatthese constitutions are no t 'loyal and repubUcan,' an d requires th e people to form themanew. What, then, in th e opinion o f Con gress, is necessary to make th e constitutionof a State 'loyal and republican?' The originalac t answers th e question: 'I t i s universalnegro sUlfrage, a question which th e federalConstitution leaves exclusively to th e Statesthemselves. All this legislative machinery ofmartial law, mllltary coercion, and politicaldisfranchisement Is avowedly for that purpose and none other . The existing constitutions of th e te n States conform to th e ac knowledged standards of loyalty and repubUcanlsm. Indeed, I f there are degrees in re publican forms of government, their constitut ions are more repub lican now, than whenthese States-four of which were membersof th e original thirteen-first became members of the Union."In President Andrew Johnson's Veto message on the Reconstruction Act on July 19,1867,27 h e point ed ou t various unconstltutlonaUties as follows:"The veto of th e original blll of th e 2d ofMarch was based on two distinct grounds,th e Inter ference of Congress in mattersstrictly appertaining to the reserved powersof th e States, and th e establishment of mllltary tribunals for th e t rial o f citizens In timeof peace.

"I t Is now too late to say that these te npoUtlcal communities are no t States of thisUnion. Declarations t o t he contrary made inthese three acts a re con tr ad ic ted aga in andagain by repeated acts of legislation enactedby Oongress from th e year 1861 to th e year1867."During that period, While these Stateswere In actua l rebelllon, and a ft er that re bel llon was brought to a close, they havebeen aga in and again recognized as Statesof th e Union. Representation has been apport ioned to them as States. They have been di vided Into judicial d istr icts for th e holdingof district and circuit cou rt s o f th e UnitedS ta tes, as States of th e Union only can bedlstrlcted. The l ast ac t o n th is su bjec t waspassed July 23, 1866. by whIch everyone ofthese te n States was arranged Into districtsand circuits."They have been called upon by Congressto ac t th rough thei r legislatures upon atleast two amendments to the Constitution ofth e United States. As States they have ratified one amendment, which requi red th evote of twenty-seven States of th e thlrtysix then composing th e Union. When th erequisite twenty-seven votes were given infavor of that amendment-seven of whichvotes were gi ven by seven of these te nStates--it was proclaimed to be a part ofth e Constitution of th e United States, an dslavery was declared no longer to exist withinth e Uni ted S ta tes or any place subject totheir jurisdiction. If these seven States wereno t legal Sta tes of th e Union, it follows asan inevitable consequence that In some ofth e States slavery ye t exists. I t does no t exist

".

eral Records of th e United States , G.S.A.National Archives and Records Service.so 14 Stat. p. 814.B1 House Journal , 37th Congress, 1s t Sessn.p. 123 etc.112 Senate Journal , 37th Congress, 1s t Sessn.p. 91 etc."1 3 Stat. 763. 14 Stat. p. 811... 14 Stat. 814... House Journal, 39th Congress, 2nd Sessn.p. 563 e tc .

On August 20, 1866, President AndrewJohnson issued another proclamation pointing out t he fact that th e House of Representatives and Senate had adopted Identical Resolutions on July 22nd lU and July25th, 1861,82 that th e Civil War forced bydisunionists of the Southern States, was no twaged for th e purpose of con ques t or tooverthrow th e rights and established Institutions of those States, bu t to defend an dmaintain th e supremacy of th e Constitutionand to preserve th e Union with all equalityand rights of th e several states unimpaired,and that as soon as these objec ts a re accompUshed, th e war ought to cease. The Presi dent's proclamation on June 13, 1865, declared th e Insurrection in th e State of Tennessee had been suppressed." The President's proclamation on April 2, 1866,'" declared th e insurrection In th e other Souther n States, except Texas, no longer existed.On August 20, 1866,25 th e President proclaimed that th e insurrection i n t he State ofTexas had been completely ended; and hisproclamation continued: "the insurrectionwhich heretofore existed In th e State ofTexas is at an end, and is to be hencefor thso regarded in that S ta te , a s in th e otherStates before named in which th e said in surrection was proclaimed to be at an endby th e aforesaid proclamation of th e secondday of April, one thousand, eight hundredan d sixty-six."And I do further proclaim that th e saidinsurrection is at an end, and that peace,order, tranqulllty, and civil authority nowexist, in and throughout the whole of th eUnited States of America."4. When th e State of Louisiana rejectedth e 14th Amendment on February 6, 1867,making th e 10th state to have rejected th esame, or mor e than one-fourth of th e totalnumber of 36 states of th e Union as of thatdate, thus leaving less than three-fourths ofth e states possibly to ratify th e same, th eAmendment failed of ratification in fact andin law, and It could no t have been revivedexcept by a new Joint Resolution of th eSenate and House o f Rep re sent at ive s Inaccordance With Constitutional requirement.5. Faced with th e positive fai lure of ratification of th e 14th Amendment, both Housesof Congress passed over th e veto of th e President three Acts known as ReconstructionActs, between th e dates of March 2 andJuly 19, 1867, especially t he t hi rd of saidActs, 15 Stat. p. 14 e tc ., designed 111egallyto remove With "Military force" th e lawfullyconst itut ed S ta te Legislatures of th e 10Southern Sta tes o f Virginia, North Carolina,South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama,Mississippi, Arkansas, Louisiana an d Texas.In President Andrew Johnson's Veto messageon th e Reconstruction Act of March 2, 1867,"he pointed ou t these unconstitutionallties:

" I f ever th e American citizen should beleft to th e free exercise of hi s own jUdgment,it Is when he is engaged in th e work of forming th e fundamental law under which he isto live. That work i s hi s work, and it canno t properly be taken ou t of his hands. Allthis legislation proceeds upon th e contraryAssumption that th e people of each o f theseStates shall have no constitution, except suchas may be arbitrarar i ly dictated by Congress,and formed under th e restraint of mllltaryrule. A plain statement of facts makes thisevident.

,. House Journal 1866-1867, p. 108-SenateJournal 1866-1867, p. 101... McPherson, Reconstruction, p. 194; An-nual Encyclopedia, p. 452.

21 House Journal 1867, p. 223-8enate Jour-na l 1867, p. 176.22 House Journal 1867, p. 1141-8enateJournal 1867, p. 808.23McPherson, Reconstruction, p. 194... House Journal 1868, pp. 44-50-8enateJournal 1868, pp. 33-38... Minutes o f th e Assembly 1868, p. 743-Senate Journal 1868, p. 356... House Journal , 39th Congress, 2nd Ses-sion. p. 563 etc.27 13 Stat. p. 567.28 13 Stat. p. 774... Presidential Proclamation No. 153, Gen-

CXIII - -986-Par t 12

Virginia rejected th e 14th Amendment onJanuary 9, 1867.19Louisiana rejected th e 14th Amendmenton February 6, 1867.20Delaware rejected th e 14th Amendment onFebruary 7, 1867.21Maryland rejected th e 14th Amendment onMarch 23, 1867.22Mississippi rejected th e 14th Amendmenton January 31, 1867.23Ohio rejected th e 14th Amendment onJanuary 15, 1868."New Jersey rejected th e 14th Amendmenton March 24, 1868.'"There was no question that all of th eSouthern s ta te s which rejec ted th e 14thAmendment ha d legally constituted governments, were fully recognized by th e federalgovernment, an d were functioning as membe r s ta te s of th e Union at th e time of theirrejection.President Andrew Johnson, in hi s Vetomessage of March 2, 1867,2. pointed ou t that:"It Is no t denied that t he S ta te s in question have each of them an actual government with all th e powers, executive, judicialan d legislative, which properly belong to afree State. They are organized like th e otherStates of th e Union, and, like them, theymake, admin is te r, and execute th e lawswhich concern their domestic affairs."If further prOOf were needed that theseStates were operating under legally constituted governments as member States in the

Union, th e ratification of th e 13th Amendment by December 8, 1865 undoubtedly supplies this official proof. If th e SouthernStates were no t member States of th e Union,th e 13th Amendment would no t have beensubmitted to their Legislatures for ratification.2. The 13th Amendment to th e UnitedStates Constitution was proposed by JointResolu tion of Congress 27 and was approvedFebruary I, 1865 by President Abraham Lincoln, as required by Article I, Section 7 of th eUnited States Constitu tion. The President 'ssignature is affiXed t o t he Resolution.The 13th Amendment was ratified by 27states of th e th en 36 states of th e Union,including th e Southern States of Virginia,LoUisiana, Arkansas, South Carolina, Alabama, Nor th CaroUna an d Georgia. This isshown by th e Proclamation of th e Secretaryof State December 18, 1965.'" Without th evotes of these 7 Southern State Legislaturesth e 13th Amendmen t would have failed.There can be no doubt but that th e ratification by these 7 Southern States of th e 13thAmendment again established th e fact thattheir Legislatures and State governmentswere duly and lawfully constituted and funct ion ing as s uch under t he ir S ta te Constitutions.3. Furthermore, on April 2, 1866, PresidentAndrew Johnson Issued a proclamation that,"the insurrection which heretofore existedIn th e States of Georgia, South CaroUna, Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, Alabama,Louisiana, Arkansas, Mississippi an d Floridais at an end, and Is henceforth to be so regarded." 29

8/7/2019 15641-15646

4/6HeinOnline -- 113 Cong. Rec. 15644 1967

15644 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE June 13, 1967in these seven States, for they have abolishedi t also In their State constitutions; but Kentucky no t having done so, It would s ti ll r emain in that State. But, In truth, I f thisassumption that these States have no legalState governments be true, t he n t he abolition of slavery by these Illegal governmentsbinds no one, fo r c on gre ss now denies tothese States th e power to abolish s lavery bydenying to t hem t he power to elect a legalState legislature, or to frame a constitutionfor any purpose, even for such a purpose asth e abolition of slavery."As to the other const itut iona l amendment having reference to sUffrage, It h ap pens that these States have no t acceptedit . The consequence is, that it ha s never beenproclaimed or understood, even by Congress,to be a part of th e Constitution of th e UnitedStates. The Senate o f th e United States hasrepeatedly given it s sanction to the appointment of judges, district attorneys, andmarshals for everyone of these S ta tes; yet,

I f they are no t legal States, no t one o f t he sejudges Is authorized to hold a court. So, too,both houses of Congress have passed appropriation bills to pay all t he se jUdges, at torneys, and officers of th e United States forexercising their functions in these S ta tes.Again, i n the machinery of th e Internal revenue laws, a ll t he se States are dlstrlcted,no t as 'Territories,' but as 'States.'"So much for continuous legislative recognition. The Instances cited, however, fall fa rshort of all that might b e enumera ted.Executive recognition, as Is well known, ha sbeen f re quen t and unwavering. The samemay be said as to jUdicial recognitionthrough th e Supreme Court of th e UnitedStates."To me these considerations are conclusiveof th e unconstitutionality of this part of th ebill now before me, and I earnestly commendtheir consideration to th e deliberate judgment of Congress. [And now to the Court.]"Within a period less than a year th e legislation of Congress has attempted to strip th eexecutive department of th e government ofsome of it s essential powers. The Constitution, and th e oath provided In it , devolveupon th e President th e power and duty tosee that th e laws are faithfully executed.The Const itut ion, In o rder to carry out t hi s

power, gives h im th e choice of th e agents,and makes them subject to his control andsupervision. But in the execu tion o f theselaws th e constitutional obligation upon th ePresident remains, but th e powers to exercise that constitutional duty Is effectuallytaken away. The military commander Is, asto the power of appointment, made t o t ak eth e place of it s President, a nd th e Generalof th e Army th e place of th e Senate; and anyattempt on th e part of th e President to asserthi s own constitutional power may, underpretence of law, be me t by official Insubordination. I t Is to be feared that these militaryofficers, looking to th e authority given bythese laws rather than to th e letter of th eConstitution, will recognize no authority bu tth e commander of th e district a nd t he General of th e army."I f there were no other objection than this

to this proposed legislation, it would besufficient."No one can contend that th e Reconstruction Acts were ever upheld as being valid andconstitutional.They were brought Into question, but th eCourts either avoided decision or were prevented by Congress from finally adjudicatingupon their constitutionality.In Mississippi v. President Andrew Johnson, (4 Wall. 475-502), where th e suit soughtto enjoin th e President of th e United Statesfrom enforcing provisions of th e Reconstruction Acts, th e U.S. Supreme Court held thatth e President cannot be enjoined because forth e Judicial Department of th e governmentt o a tt empt to enforce th e performance of

".

th e dut ie s by th e President might be justlycharacterized, In th e language of Chief Justice Marshall, as "a n abs urd and excessiveextravagance." The Cou rt further said thatI f th e Court granted th e Injunction againstenforcement of th e Reconstruction Acts, an dI f th e President refused obedience, It is needless to observe that th e Court i s W it houtpower to enforce it s process.In a joint action, th e states of Georgiaand Mississippi brought suit against th ePresident and th e Secretary o f War , (6 Wall.50-78,154U.S.554).The Court said that:"The bill then sets forth that th e Intentand design of th e Acts o f congr es s, a s ap par en t on t hi er face and by their terms, areto overthrow and annul this existing stategovernment, an d to erect another an d different government in it s place, unauthorized by th e Const itut ion and in defiance ofit s guaranties; and that, i n f ur ther ance o fthis intent and design, th e defendants, th eSecretary of War, th e General of th e Army,an d Major-General Pope, acting under ordersof th e President, are about set ting in motion a por tion o f th e a rmy t o take militarypossession of th e state, and t hr ea ten t o s ub ver t her government and sub je ct her peopleto military rule; that t he s ta te is holdinginadequate means t o res is t th e power andforce of th e Executive Department of th eUnited States; and she therefore insists thatsuch protection can, and ought to be affordedby a decree or order of h is c ou rt in thepremises."The applications for injunction by thesetwo s ta te s to prohibi t th e Executive Department f rom carrying ou t th e provisions ofth e Reconstruction Acts directed to th e overthrow of their government, Including thisdissolution of t he ir s ta te legislatures, weredenied on th e grounds that th e organizationof th e government Into three great departments, th e executive, legislative and judicial,carried limitations of th e powers of each byth e Constitution. This case when th e sameway as th e previous case of Mississippiagainst President Johnson and was dismissedwithout adjUdicating upon th e constitutionality of th e Reconstruction Acts.In another case, ex parte William H. McCardle (7 Wall . 506-515), a petition for th ewrit of habeas corpus for unlawfUl restraintby mil it ar y force of a citizen no t in th emilitary service of th e United States wasbefore th e United States Supreme Court .After th e case was argued an d taken underadvisement, and before conference in re gard to th e decision to b e made, Congresspassed an emergency Act, (Act March 27,1868, 15 Stat. at L. 44), vetoed by th ePresident and repassed over his veto, re pealing th e jurisdiction of th e U.S. SupremeCourt in such case. Accordingly, th e SupremeCourt dismissed th e appeal without passingupon th e constitutionality of th e Reconstruction Acts, under which th e non-militarycitizen was held by th e military withoutbenef it o f writ of habeas corpus, in violation of Section 9, Article I of th e U.S. Constitution which prohib its th e suspension ofth e wri t o f h abeas corpus.That Act of Congress placed th e Reconstruction Acts beyond judicial recourse andavoided tests of constitu tionality .I t Is recorded that one of th e SupremeCourt Justices, Grier, protested against th eaction of th e Court as follows:"This case was fully argued In th e beginning of t hi s month. It Is a case which in volves th e liberty and rights, no t only ofth e appellant but of. millions of ou r fellowcitizens. The coun tr y a nd th e parties ha da right to expect t ha t i t would receive th eimmediate and solemn attention of th ecourt. By th e postponement of this case weshall subject ourselves, whether justly orunjus tly, to th e imputation that we haveevaded th e performance of a duty Imposed

on us by th e Constitution, an d waited forLegislative interposition to supersede ou raction, and relieve us from responsibility.I am no t willing to be a partaker of th eeulogy or opprobrium that may follow. Ican only say .. . I am ashamed that suchopprobrium should be c ast upon th e courtand that I t c anno t be refu ted ."The te n States were organized Into MilitaryDistricts under th e unconstitutional "Reconstruction Acts," their lawfUlly constitutedLegislature Illegally were removed by "military force," and they were replaced by rump,so-called Legislatures, seven of which carriedou t military orders and pretended to ratifyth e 14th Amendment, as follows:Arkansas on April 6, 1868;38North Carolina on July 2,1868;""Florida on June 9, 1868; JLouisiana on July 9,1868;41South Carolina on July 9, 1868;40Alabama o n July 13, 1868;" an d Georgiaon July 21, 1868.'"6. Of th e above 7 States whose Legislatureswere removed and r ep laced by rump, socalled Legislatures, s ix (6) Legislatures of th estates of Louis iana, Arkansas, South Carolina, Alabama, North Carolina and Georgiahad ratified th e 13th Amendment, as shownby th e Secretary of State's Proclamation ofDecember 18, 1865, without which 6 States'ratifications, th e 13th Amendment could no tan d would no t have been ratified because said6 States made a total of 27 ou t of 36 Statesor exactly three-fourths of th e numbe r r eqUired by Article V of th e Constitution forratification.Furthermore, governments of th e Statesof Louisiana and Arkansas ha d been re-establIshed under a Proclamation i ssued by President Abraham Lincoln December 8, 1863.'The government o f North Carolina hadbeen re-establlshed under a Proclamationissued by President Andrew Johnson datedMay 29, 1865.'The government of Georgia ha d been re established under a proclamation issued byPresident Andrew Johnson da ted June 17,1865.47The government of Alabam.a ha d been reestablished under a Proclamation Issued byPresident Andrew Johnson dated June 21,1865."The government of South Carol ina' hadbeen re-establlshed under a Proclamationissued by President Andrew Johnson datedJune 30, 1865..These three "Reconstruction Acts" 00 underwhich th e above State Legislatures were il legally removed an d unlawful rump or puppe t so-called Legislatures were substitutedin a mock effort to ratify th e 14th amendment, were unconst itutional , null and void,ab initio, and a ll a ct s done thereunder werealso null an d void, including th e purportedratification of th e 14th Amendment by s aid6 Southern puppet State Legis latures of

38 McPherson, Reconstruction, p. 53.30 House Journal 1868, p. 15, Senate Journal1868, p. 15.House Journal 1868, p. 9, Senate Journal1868, p. 8.n Senat e J ou rnal 1868, p . 21.

8/7/2019 15641-15646

5/6HeinOnline -- 113 Cong. Rec. 15645 1967

June 13, 1967 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE 15645Arkansas, North Carollna, Louisiana, SouthCarollna, Alabama and Georgia.Those Reconstruction Acts of Congress anda ll a ct s an d things unlawfully done thereunder were in violation of Art ic le IV, Sec -tion 4 of th e United States Consti tu tion,which requi red th e United States to guar_antee every State in the Union a republlca n form of government. They violated Article I, Section 3, and Art ic le V of th e Con-stitution, which entitled every State in theUnion to two Senators, because under provisions of these unl awfu l Acts of Congress,10 States were deprived of having two Senators, o r equal SUffrage in th e Senate.7. Th e Secretary of State expressed doubtas to whether three-fourths of th e requiredstates had ratified th e 14th Amendment , asshown by his Proclamation of July 20, 1868."Promptly on July 21, 1868, a Joint Resolution 02 was adopted by th e Senate and Houseof Representat ives declaring that threefourths of th e several States of th e Union hadratified th e 14th Amendment. That resolution, however, included purported ratifications by th e unlawful puppet Legislatures of6 States, Arkansas, North Carolina, Louisiana,South Carollna an d Alabama, which ha d previously rejected th e 14th Amendment by action of their lawfully constituted Legisla-tures, as above shown. This Joint Resolutionassumed to perform the function of th e Sec-retary of S ta te i n whom Congress, by Act ofApril 20, 1818, ha d vested th e function ofissuing such proclamation declaring th e ratification of Constitutional Amendments.The Secretary of State bowed to the actionof Congress and issued his Proclamat ion ofJuly 28, 1868,'" in which he stated that hewas acting under authori ty of th e Act ofApril 20, 1818, bu t pursuant to said Resolution of July 21, 1868. He listed three-fourthsor so of th e then 37 states as having ratifiedth e 14th Amendment , i nc luding the purported ratification of the unlawful puppetLegislatures of th e States of Arkansas, NorthCarollna, Louisiana, South Carolina and Ala-bama. Without said 6 unlawful purportedratifications there wou ld hiwe been onl y 26s ta tes l ef t to ratify ou t of 37 when a minimum of 28 states was required for ratificationby three-fourths of th e States of the Union.The Joint Resolution of Congress a nd t heresult ing Proclamation of th e Secretary ofState also included purported ratifications byth e States of Ohio and New Jersey, althoughth e Proclamation recognized the fact thatth e Legislatures of said states, several monthspreviously, ha d withdrawn their ratificationsand effectively rejected the 14th Amendmentin January, 1868, and April, 1868.Therefore, deducting these two states fromth e purported ratifications of th e 14thAmendment , only 23 State ratifications atmost could be claimed; whereas th e ratification of 28 S ta te s, o r three-fourths of 37States in th e Union, were requi red to ratifyth e 14th Amendment,From al l of th e above documented historicfacts, it is inescapable that th e 14th Amendment never was validly adopted as an articleof th e Constitution, that it has no legaleffect, and i t should be dec la re d by th eCourts to be unconstitutional, and thereforenull, void and of n o effect.TH E CONSTITUTION STRIKES THE 14TH AMEND

MENT WITH NULLITYTh e defenders o f th e 14th Amendmentcontend that th e U.S. Supreme Court ha sfinally decided upon It s validity. Such Is no tth e case.In what Is considered th e leading case,Coleman v. Miller, 307 U.S. 448, 69 S. Ct. 972,th e U.S. Supreme Court d id no t uphold th evalldlty of th e 14th Amendment.01 16 Stat. p. 706.62 House Journal, 40th Congress, 2nd Sessn.p. 1126 etc..... 16 Stat. p. 708.

In that case, th e Court brushed asideconsti tutional questions as though they didno t exist. For instance. th e Court made th estatement that:"The legislatures of Georgia, North CaroIlna a nd Sou th Carolnia had rejected th eamendmen t i n November and December.1866. New governments were erected In thoseStates (and In others) under th e directionof Congress. Th e new legislatures ratifiedth e amendment, that of North Carolina onJuly 4, 1868, that of South Carolina onJuly 9, 1868, and that of Georgia on Jul y 21,1868."And th e Court gave no consideration to th efact that Georgia, North Carollna and SouthCarollna were three of th e original states ofth e Union with valid and existing constitutions on an equal footing With th e otheroriginal states and those later admit ted intoth e Union.What const itu tional right did Congresshave to remove those state governments andtheir legislatures under unlawfUl militarypower se t up by th e unconstitutional "Reconstruction Acts," which ha d for their purpose,th e destruction and removal of these legalstate governments and th e nullification oftheir Constitutions?The fac t that these three states and sevenother Southern States had existing Constitu_tions, were recognized as states of th e Union,again and again; ha d been divided Into judicial distr ict s for holding their district andcircuit courts of th e United States; had beencalled upon by Congress to act through the irlegislatures upon two Amendments, th e 13thand 14th, and by their ratifications ha d actually made possible th e adoption of the 13thAmendment; as well as thei r s ta te governments having been re-established underPresidential Proclamations, as shown byPresident Andrew Johnson's Veto messageand proclamations, were al l brushed asideby th e Court In Coleman by th e statementthat: " ~ e w governments were erected inthos e Sta te s ( an d in othe rs) u nde r the direction of Congress," and that these new leg-Islatures ratified th e Amendment.The U.S. Supreme Court overlooked thatit previously ha d held that at no t ime werethese Southern S ta tes ou t of th e Union.White v. Hart, 1871, 13 Wall. 646, 654.In Coleman, the Court did no t adjUdicateupon th e Invalldity of th e Acts of Congresswhich set aside those state Constitutions andabolished their state legislatures,-the Courtsimply referred to the fact that their legallyconstituted legislatures ha d rejected th e 14thAmendment and that th e "new legislatures"ha d ratified th e Amendment.The Cou rt overlooked th e fact, too, thatth e State of Virginia was also one of th eoriginal states with it s Consti tution and Leg-I sl at ur e In full operation und er its civilgovernment at th e time.The Court also ignored th e fact that th eother six Southern States, which were giventh e same treatment by Congress under theunconstitutional "Reconstruction Acts", al lhad legal constitutions an d a repUblicanform of government in each state, as wasrecognized by Congress by I ts admi ss ion ofthose states i nt o t he Union. The Court certainly must take judicial cognizance of th efact that before a new state is admitted byCongress into the Union, Congress enaots anEnabling Act to enable th e inhabitants ofth e territory to adopt a Constitution to se tup a republ ican form of government as acondition precedent to th e admission of th es ta te Into th e Union, and upon approval ofsuch Constitution, Congress then passes th eAct of Admis sion of such state.All this was Ignored and brushed asideby th e Court 10 th e Coleman case. However,In Coleman th e Court Inadver tent ly saidthis:"Whenever official notice is received at th eDepartment of State that any amendmentproposed to th e Constitution of th e United

S ta te s ha s be en adopted, according to th eprovisions of th e Constitution, th e Secretaryof State shall forthwith cause th e amendment to be publlshed, w ith h is certificate,specifying th e States by which th e same mayhave been adopted, and that th e same ha sbecome valid, to al l intents and purposes, asa part of th e Constitution of th e UnitedStates."In Hawke v. Smith, 1920, 253 U.S. 221, 40 S.Ct. 227, th e U.S. SupremeCourt unmistakablyheld:"The f if th art icle is a grant of authorityby th e people to Congress. The determination of t he method of rati fication Is th eexercise of a national power specificallygranted by th e Constitution; that power i sconferred upon Congress, and is Ilmited totwo methods , by act ion of th e Legislaturesof three-fourths of th e states, o r conventions In a like number of s ta tes. Dodge v.Woolsey, 18 How. 331, 348, 16 L. Ed. 401. Theframers of th e Constitution might haveadopted a different method. Rat if icat ionmight have been left to a vote of th e people,or to some authority of government otherthan that selected. The language of the a rt icle Is plain, and admits of no doubt In ItsIntrepretatlon. It is no t th e function ofcour ts or legislative bodies, national or state.to alter th e method which th e Constitutionha s fixed."We submit that in no ne of th e cases, inwhich th e Court avoided th e constitutionalIssues Involved In th e composition of th eCongress which adopted th e Joint Resolutionfor th e 14th Amendment, did th e Court passupon th e consti tutionali ty of th e Congresswhich purported t o adopt the Joint Resolut ion for th e 14th Amendment, with 80 Representatives and 23 Senators, in effect,forcibly ejected or denied their seats andtheir votes on t he J oi nt Resolution proposing th e Amendment, In order to pass th esame by a two-thirds vote, as pointed ou t Inth e New Jersey Legislature Resolution onMarch 27, 1868.The const itut ional requirements set forthin Artic le V of th e Constitution permit th eCongress to propose amendments only whenever two-thirds of both houses shall deem Itnecessary,-that is, two-thirds of bothhouses as then constituted Without forcibleejections.Such a fragmentary Congress also violatedth e constitutional reqUirements of Article Vthat no s ta te , without It s consent, sha ll bedeprived Of i ts equal SUffrage In th e Senate.There is no such thing as giving life to anamendment megally proposed or never legally rat if ied by three-fourths of th e states.There Is no s uch t hi ng as amendment bylaches; no such thing as amendment bywaiver; no such th ing as amendment by acquiescence; an d no s uch t hi ng as amendment by any other means whatsoever exceptth e means specified in Artic le V of th e Constitution Itself.It does no t suffice to say that there havebeen hundreds of cases decided under th e14th Amendment to supply th e constitutionaldeficiencies in its proposal or ratification asrequired by Article V. I f hundreds of li tigantsdid no t question th e validity of th e 14th

Amendment, or questioned th e same perfunctorily without submitting documentaryproof of th e facts of record which made It spurported adoption unconst itut ional , theirfailure cannot change th e Constitution forth e millions in America. The same thing Istrue of laches; th e same thing Is true ofacquiescence; th e same thing is true of II Iconsidered court decisions.To ascribe constitutional life to an allegedamendment which never c ame I nto b eingaccording to specific methods l ai d down InArtic le V cannot be done without doing vio-lence to Article V Itself. This Is true, becauseth e on ly questi on open to the courts iswhether th e alleged 14th Amendment became a part of th e Constitution through a

8/7/2019 15641-15646

6/6HeinOnline -- 113 Cong. Rec. 15646 1967

15646 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE June 13, 1967method required by Article V. Anything beyond that which a court is called upon tohold in order to validate an amendment,would be equivalent to writing into Article Vanother mode of th e amendment which hasnever been authorized by th e people of th eUnited States.On this point, therefore, th e question is,was th e 14th Amendment proposed and ra ti fied in accordance with Article V?In answering this question, i t is of no realmoment that decisions have been renderedin which th e parties did no t contest or submit proper eVidence, or th e Court assumedthat there was a 14th Amendment. I f a statut e never in fact passed by Congress, throughsome error of administration and print inggot into th e pubUshed r epor ts o f th e statutes, and if under such supposed statutecourts ha d levied punishment upon a number of persons charged under it, and I f th eerror i n t he pubUshed volume was discoveredand th e fact became known that no suchstatute had ever passed in Congress, it is un thinkable that th e Courts would continue toadminister punishment in similar cases, ona non-existent statute because prior decisionsha d done so. If that be true as to a statutewe need only reaUze th e greater truth whenth e principle is appUed to th e solemn question of th e contents of th e Constitution.Whlle th e defects in th e method of proposing and th e SUbsequent method of computing "ratification" is briefed elsewhere, itshould be noted that the f ai lu re to complywith Artic le V began with th e first action byCongress. The very Congress which proposedth e alleged 14th Amendment under the firstpart of Article V was itself, a t t ha t very time,violating th e last part as well as th e firstpart of Article V of th e Constitution. Weshall see how this was done.There is one, and only one, provision ofth e Consti tution of th e United States Whichis forever immutable-which ca n never bec ha nged o r expunged. The Cou rts cannotalter It; th e executives cannot change it ; th eCongress cannot change i t; th e States themselves-even al l th e States in perfect concert-cannot amend It In any manner whatsoever, Whether they act t hrough conventions called for th e purpose or through theirlegislatures. Not even the unanimous vote ofevery voter i n th e United States could amendthis provision. It Is a perpetual fixture inth e Constitution, so perpetual and so fixedthat I f th e people of th e Uni ted Sta tes desired to change or exclUde It, they would becompelled to abolish th e Consti tut ion andstart afresh.The unal terable provision is this: "thatno S ta te , without con sent , s ha ll be d eprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate."A state, by It s own co nsen t, may waivethis right of equal SUffrage, but t ha t is th eonly legal method by Which a fallure to accord th is Immutable right of equal SUffragei n the Senate ca n be justified. Certainly no tby forcible ejection and denial by a majority in Congress, as was done for th e adoptionof the Join t Resolution for th e 14th Amendment.Statements by thD Court in the Colemancase that Congress was left in completecontrol of th e mandatory process, and therefore it was a political affair for Congress todecide if an amendment had been ratified,does no t square with Ar ticl e V o f th e COnstitution which shows no inten tion to leaveCongress in charge of deciding whether thereha s been a ratification. Even a constitutionally recognized Congress is given bu t onevolltion in Article V, that is, to vote whetherto propose an Amendment on I ts own initiative. The r emai ni ng s teps by Congress ar emandatory. If two-thirds of both houses shalldeem it necessary. Congress shall proposeamendment s; i f th e Legislatures of twothirds of th e States make appllcatlon, Congress shall call a convention. For th e COurtto give Congress any power beyond that to be

found in Art icle V is to write th e new material Into Article V.It would be Inconceivable that th e Congress of th e United States could propose,compel SUbmission to , and then give lifeto an invalld amendment by reSOlving thatit s effort had succeeded-regardless of compliance with th e positive provisions of Article V.It shOUld need no further citations tosustain th e proposition that n eith er t heJoint Resolution proposing th e 14th Amendment nor its rati ficat ion by th e required

three-fourths of th e S ta te s in th e Unionwere in compllance with th e requirementsof Article V of th e Constitution.When th e mandatory provisions of th eConstitution are violated, th e Constitutionitself strikes with nul ll ty th e Act that didviolence to it s provisions. Thus, th e Constitution strikes with nUlllty th e purported14th Amendment.The Courts, bound by oat h t o s uppo rt t heConstitution, should review all of th e evidence herein s ubmi tt ed and measure th efac ts p roving v io la tions of th e mandatoryprovisions of th e Constitution with ArticleV, and finally render judgment declaringsaid purported Amendment never to havebeen adopted as requi red by th e Constitution.The Consti tution makes it th e sworn dutyof th e judges to uphold th e Constitutionwhich strikes wi th null lty th e 14th Amendment.And, as Chief Justice Marshall pointed ou tfor a unanimous Court in Marbury v. Madison(1 Cranch 136 @ 179) :"The f ramers o f the const itution contemplated th e instrument as a rule for th e government of courts , as well as of th e legislature.""Why does a judge swear to discharge hisduties agreeably to th e constitution of th eUnited States, I f that constitution forms norule for his government?" . " I f such be th e real state of things, thatis worse than solemn mockery, To prescribe,or to take this oath, becomes equally a

crime."

"Thus, th e particular phraseology of th econstitution of th e United States confirmsand strengthens th e principle, supposed tobe essentiai to al l written constltu tlons cou rt s, a s well as other depar tments, arebound by that instrument."Th e federal cour ts actually refuse to hearargument on the i nval id it y o f th e 14thAmendment, even when th e issue is presented squarely by th e pleadings and t he evidence as above.Only an aroused pubUc sent iment in favorof preserving th e Constitution and our ins t itutions and freedoms under constitutionalgovernment, and th e future secur it y o f ourcountry, wil1 break th e poUtical barrierwhich now prevents jUdicial considerationof th e unconstitutionality of th e 14th amendment.THE MIDEAST CRISIS-NOT BACKWARD TO BELLIGERENCY BUTFORWARD TO PEACEMr. PRYOR. Mr. Speaker, I askunanimous consent that the gentlemanfr om New York [Mr. TENZER] may extend his remarks at this point in theRECORD and include extraneousmatter.The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is thereobjection to th e request of the gentlemanfrom Arkansas?There was no objection.Mr. TENZER. Mr. Speaker , the distinguished Foreign Minister of the S t ~ t e

of Israe l, Abba Eban, in his address tothe United Nations Securi ty Council onJune 6, 1967, set .the theme for a lastingpeace in the Middle East so much desir ed by all th e peace-loving nations ofth e world. His address was entitled,"Not Backward to Belligerency bu t Forward to Peace."On June 7, 1967, following the firstUnited Nations resolution calling fo r acease-fire i n t he Middle East, I stated toa distinguished group of Americans Wll0visited me in Washington as follows:I deem i t most imperative that th e termsof th e agreement to follow th e cease fireprovide effective guarantees, to th e end thatpermanent peace may be estabUshed in theMiddle East.The int eres ts of world peace would bestbe served if th e terms provide:1. For recognition of th e val ld ity of th esovereignty of th e State of Israel by th eU.A.R. and other Arab states.2. A reaffirmation that th e Gulf of Aqabais an international waterway an d wl1l re main open for free passage to shipping of allnations through th e Straits of Tiran .3. An opening of th e Suez Canal to shipping of all nations.4. An ending of terrori sm and border raidsso that Israel may carry out its desire to Uve

in peace with i ts neighbors.5. For direct negotiations between Israelan d he r Arab neighbors for th e resolutionof other pending issues.Indeed, it is within the province of th esovereign State of Isr ae l to speak it smind on th e terms of the agreement tofollow th e cease-tire-the terms which inits view will best insure permanentpeace in the Middle East. We on th eother hand take the opportunity to makesuggestions which in our opinion willbest secure th e peace of th e worldthereby also serving th e best interestsof the United States.An elaboration of th e five points sugges ted on June 7, 1966, is accordinglyin order.

I. THE STATE OF ISRAEL A SOVEREIGN NATIONThe state of Israel is a member of th eUnited Nations-a full-fledged memberof the family of nations. Though the in t egri ty of her borders were guaranteedby the major powers-three times in 20years-the State of Israel was obligedto go to war to pu t a stop to the violation of her boundary lines.I t is therefore bas ic to any plan forpermanent peace in the Middle East thatthe sovereignty of the State of Israel berecognized by her neighbors. Thi s f ac tcannot be questioned-this truth is andshould no t be negotiable because its import was underl ined by the events of thepast 10 days.The foundation for a permanent peacein th e l\-:addle East must be the absoluteanu unqualified recognition by the ArabStates of the right of the State of Israelto exist as a sovereign state among other

s o v ~ r e i g n states. When this fOlmdationislaid, then Israel and her Arab neighbors can, through direct negotiations,begin to bui ld the s tructure l eading topermanent peace.II . STRAI T O F T IRAN AN INTERNATIONAL

WATERWAYSince 1950, Egypt has repeatedly givenassurances that the Strait of Tiranwould remain open for "innocent passage