Do you remember in the Slaughterhouse cases the Supreme Court hinted that they're might be some other reason besides Slavery that really started the Civil War?

Do you remember that they told you that President Johnson had possibly lied to congress and the people about the need for the 15^th amendment?

Do you remember that I showed you in the case of Hans that the lawyer knew that Hans was not a Citizen of the State of Louisiana? That's why he went to a Circuit court created by the federal Government instead of the Supreme Court as a State Citizen would? Do you remember that he had to find a way to sue the State where the Character of Hans wouldn't be an issue. Hans's Character was that of a citizen of the United States and not a King. Though he must have had a residence in the State of Louisiana, yet the Court kept telling him that as a citizen of another State, or of a foreign state. His claim was that he was not one of those. He was a King, a Citizen of the State of Louisiana. Somehow, the court and the lawyer knew he wasn't. There was no question that he lived in Louisiana. Of what other state or foreign State was he a citizen? He must have been a citizen of the United States. There is only one answer. His his home must not have been on Louisiana soil or he would have had a bona fide residence in the State and he would have been a King instead of a freed slave. His residence must not have been bona fide.

I told you at the beginning of this that the lawyers know that you are a freed slave, a citizen of the United States. When you go to a lawyer screaming about your rights, well, I hate to tell you this, but they are laughing at you. Hans's lawyer knew as did the lawyer for the butchers.

I am now going to tell you the story of the Dubious origins of the 14^th Amendment. This story was told to me by the Tulane Law Review. There are other law reviews that tell the same story, but this one has special significance. This story was told to the New Orleans Bar Association on September 29, 1953 and published in the Louisiana Bar Association Journal. Curiously, the chief justice of the Louisiana Supreme Court was a publisher of another law journal just a few years earlier. There can be no doubt that the Chief Justice of the Louisiana Supreme Court knows this story and knows the story of the overthrow of the Kings as told by the United States Supreme Court.

First, let's put this story into a context. You remember that the Supreme Court told us that Negroes couldn't be kings like everyone else, even if they were freed. The Constitution had to be changed to do that. They told you that in the Dred Scott story.

You remember that we created a new class of citizenship for the Negroes called a citizen of the United States. Except in the process, we took the birthright of all of the Kings. Now we were all born not Kings but citizens of the United States and we had to get a bona fide residence to reclaim our birthright. They told you that in the Slaughterhouse Story.

You remember that Hans thought he was a King, but his lawyer, the Court and the Louisiana Attorney General knew that he wasn't. He was a citizen of another state or of a foreign State. He was just another freed slave, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

Well, as low as the Kings had sunk, it was still good to have someone to kick around. The Negroes were not much better off than they had been in Slavery. Sure they were not technically slaves, now they were subjects. A feudal surf is a subject to the Lord of the land, or maybe to the Esquire. Look what a good deal they got. But, now we were all subjects of the new King, the federal government. Even when we freed Negroes before the civil war we kept them under the tight control of government. Now that we were all freed slaves the government, the new master of us all, saw no reason to change its policy and Negroes were treated worse than the subjects that were once kings. After all, we still needed cheap labor.

Well, the Supreme Court was starting to rule that the Negroes subjects were equal to white subjects in the eyes of the government, our master. From my point of view it would seem that the lawyers were using subtle persuasion. They were telling the United States Supreme Court, in their journals, that if you keep this up we are going to spill the beans on what happened to our rights as Kings.

The title of this is the Dubious origins of the 14^th amendment.

It starts off by telling us that in recent years the Federal government is, again trying to take more power from the States.

In the last 15 years the Supreme Court has repeatedly rendered decisions aimed at coercing racial integration and breaking down established systems of racial segregation in political, educational, social, economic and other fields in the Southern States – and in some instances outside the South.

It is not the purpose of this article to discuss the merits of segregation or integration. We all have our own opinion.

What will be discussed relates to the use of the Fourteenth amendment by the United States Supreme Court as an implement for invading the areas formerly reserved to State regulation.

Remember, the United States Supreme Court told us that how we treated the freed slaves within a State was a matter for State Government.

We're tired of you using the "equal protection of the laws" clause and the "privileges or immunities" clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to attack our way of life and force us to integrate.

There is, Right now, in the United States Supreme Court a group of cases involving attacks on the constitutionality of our system of segregated public schools and they are demanding that the courts order us to destroy the segregated feature of this system.

The Supreme court has heard the arguments in these segregation cases and has studied it for months after it has been argued. Now they want to hear more argument and that has been scheduled for December.

From the actions of the Supreme Court it looks like the vote count is close.

They have even asked for the reargument to focus on the event leading up to the framing, submission and ratification of the 14^th amendment.

These questions were probably prepared without any particular intent to invite exposure or discussion of the dubious origin of the 14^th Amendment.

We know that you don't want to let the cat out of the bag, but, you are forcing integration on us so we are going to let you know that we know the true history of that amendment, and its dubious origin – one may justifiably say its worse than dubious origin – it is an inseparable part of its malodorous legislative history.

No, it wasn't just me. The guy that wrote this said it pretty much straight out. We know that the 14^th amendment changed our government like you told us in the Slaughterhouse cases. We know that it was a conspiracy to overthrow our government under the guise of freeing he slaves, but if you continue to try use it to integrate our schools, we are going to spill the beans.

If you think that I am making this up, go see for yourself. Again this is virtually a paragraph by paragraph translation. Put them side by side and see if I am bulling you.

Having threatened to spill the beans if the United States Supreme Court didn't stop using the 14^th amendment to say that the black subjects were equal to the white subjects. You have to tell the story to show that you know it. Here is the story.

There is a process for changing the constitution. It is Article V of the Constitution.

It says Congress shall propose Amendments to the Constitution whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary.

It also says that the change shall be valid as a legitimate part of the Constitution when it is ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the States.

Notice that this is a two step process. Congress takes the first step. They Submit the proposed change. The Second step, the ratification, must be the act of the States.

It must be the act of at least three fourths of the States agreeing to the change as passed by their legislatures.

When you look carefully at he procedure, it shows that the States have the primary or major and final function in the amendment process.

The role of Congress is important, but they just propose the change.

In fact, if Congress voted no to the proposed amendment, the States may even side step congress and ratify the amendment proposal if three-fourths of the States agree.

Even if Congress passed the proposed change by the required two-thirds vote, the final say so rests entirely with the States.

After they vote for and approve the proposed change, their only remaining duty is to determine whether the States shall act through their legislatures, or through Conventions.

The record how how Article V came about in the framing of the Constitution supports this view that Congress has no role at all in the amending process after they propose it.

In fact, when they framed the Constitution they even proposed to exclude the Congress entirely and leaving the whole process to the States.

Leaving the States out of the process was never even considered.

Mason wanted to exclude the National Legislature entirely. He was worried that they may abuse their power and in order to keep the power, they may block the change.

Well, they never did exclude Congress completely, but they put in safeguards against Congress trying to take over.

They put in a provision that the States could by-pass Congress. The State Legislatures of two-thirds of the States could demand a Convention to propose an amendment.

When they first made the provision for amendments to the Constitution the sole method was for two-thirds of the State Legislatures to demand a convention. Then Congress only had the duty to call the convention.

Hamilton had a major part in changing the language to allow Congress to propose a constitutional amendment. After all, what harm could there be, The people would decide in the end.

Boy, was Hamilton wrong. How could he foresee that in 1867 and 1868 a rump congress would grab power and force the ratification of a rejected amendment. They forced the States that rejected the amendment to ratify it.

Webster says A Rump is a small fragment remaining after the separation of the larger group or an area; esp: a group (as a parliament) carrying on in the name of the original body after the departure or expulsion of a large number of its members. I had to look it up. I thought I would save you the trouble. It turns out to be the perfect word for the occasion.

After Hamilton had won his point that we could safely give Congress the power to make an amendment proposal, if we did not give them the power to make the final decision, Article V found its final form.

Madison and Hamilton spearheaded the move. The Constitution gave Congress the power to propose an amendment, but, even here, they didn't even give them exclusive power to start an amendment proposal. The States could bypass Congress if two thirds of the State Legislatures agreed. And, always, the final decision of whether to accept or reject the proposal was left to the States alone.

They didn't even trust the States completely. They raise the number of States required for ratification from two thirds to three-fourths.

They did this so that a smaller number of States could reject the change.

Congress stole the constitutional right of a group of States to reject the 14^th amendment when it forced them to ratify the amendment with the Reconstruction Act.

Mason warned that Congress could try to take over the government by using its power to propose amendments to prevent States from having chance to ratify proper amendments. If they had the sole power to propose amendments, they just might not propose the ones they didn't like. That's why on the demand of two thirds of the States, Congress had to call a convention.

It is also interesting to note that the final change was the requirement that no State could be kept from participating without its consent.

They sure didn't trust the Federal Government, and rightly so, because that is exactly what Congress did.

Congress excluded all Senators from the ten Southern States.

By excluding the Senators from the ten Southern States they now had the two thirds vote of the "rump" Congress required to submit the fourteenth Amendment to the States.

We're going to ignore the Senators from the 10 Southern States. Now we only need two thirds vote of the Senators we have left.

They tried to make it look legal. The proposed Amendment was the vote of two thirds of the Senate and House. But it was a "rump" Congress.

They abused the power given them by the Constitution when it says that 'Each house shall be the judge of the Elections, returns, and qualifications of its own members." There is no legal oversight of that power.

The Senate and the House had excluded all Senators and Representatives from the ten Southern States. They were Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Arkansas and Texas.

The Constitution gave them the power to judge the Elections, returns and qualifications of its own members. No one had the power to say they couldn't. However, in the process they violated two other constitutional provisions.

The provision in Article V that says that you can exclude a State from participating in the amendment process and the provision in Article I Section 2 which says that each State shall have at least one Representative.

Both of these provisions were meant to protect the rights of the States to representation in Congress.

There can be no doubt that if there wasn't a conspiracy by both houses to overthrow the government by excluding the 10 Southern States, the 14^th Amendment would have never even been proposed.

They could have never overthrown the United States if the Southern States could vote as they were Constitutionally entitled to. But, that was why they excluded them in the first place.

Even if you say that they had a right to throw the Southern Congressmen out and create this "rump" Congress, there's no denying that this "rump" deliberation over the merits of the amendment was a "rump" deliberation.

The ten Southern States, whose Senators and Representatives were all excluded from the deliberation, had no say in the outcome or wisdom of the amendment being forced upon this nation by a conspiracy of Northern Congressmen.

If the United States Supreme Court is now going to say that this "rump" Congress understood that this amendment was going to abolish segregation in the public Schools, the Court will be forcing the Southern States into actions that they had not agreed to because they were deliberately excluded from the discussion. They didn't agree with the amendment in the first place.

Do you remember that the Supreme Court said that the State of Louisiana could create a public monopoly, and it wasn't really a monopoly, because the people had representatives that could have kept it from being created.

The exact quote from the Slaughterhouse cases is: "But it is to be observed that all such references are to monopolies established by the monarch in derogation of the rights of his subjects, or arise out of transactions in which the people were unrepresented, and their interests uncared for."

When the Fourteenth Amendment was submitted the interest of the Southern States was unrepresented and their interests uncared for.

When the Fourteenth Amendment was submitted, these ten Southern States, which had been excluded from representation in Congress, had existing governments and legislatures.

These Conspirators in Congress had tried to avoid recognizing the existing governments of these Rebel States as legal governments.

However, in practically all of these 10 States these were the only State Governments there were and these were the only Legislatures existing in these States. Therefore these were the only legislatures that you could submit the proposed 14^th amendment for ratification.

These State Governments had received Presidential recognition and through these same legislatures the ratification and adoption of the Thirteenth amendment abolishing slavery had been passed.

In fact, if it hadn't been for the ratification of the Southern States we would not have had the three-fourths of the States required to ratify the 13^th amendment.

When the proposed 14^th Amendment was submitted to the legislatures of the several States it needed twenty-eight States to ratify it. That was three fourths of the thirty Seven States.

Most of the States outside of the South ratified the 14^th amendment right off.

California didn't ratify it. Kentucky, Delaware and Maryland also rejected the amendment.

It was also rejected by the legislatures of the 10 Southern States, including Louisiana. The same States that had been excluded from Congress when it was proposed.

Between the 10 Southern States and the 3 other States that had rejected the 14^th Amendment there weren't enough States to ratify it. It only took 10 rejections to block it and there were 13.

The only way the 14^th amendment could get ratified is if some States reversed their rejection.

The Louisiana legislature which rejected the 14^th amendment in 1867 had been elected under the Louisiana Constitution of 1864. This wasn't a Constitution created by the confederacy or a reorganization of State Government by former confederates. This Constitution was adopted by a convention held in New Orleans under the Auspices of the Federal Authorities and was overseen by President Lincoln. It was clearly a re-establishment and continuation of the Louisiana State Government as it existed before secession.

This legal government of Louisiana rejected the 14^th amendment by a joint resolution of both houses. It was the only action ever taken by the State of Louisiana on the 14^th amendment while the legislature had a free will.

There the record shows that out of out of 110 member in the house 100 voted, and they all voted to reject the 14^th amendment. It was 100 to none.

These Congressional conspirators, then created a Federal Statute which abolished the legitimate government of Louisiana and created a puppet government specifically for the purpose of ratifying the 14^th Amendment.

Let's look back at Washington. The Conspirators have a majority, by over the two-thirds vote in the "Ramp" Congress. Remember, none of the 10 Southern States were allowed to participate.

These Conspirators created the Reconstruction act of 1867. It's main purpose was the passage of the 14^th amendment by forcing the 10 Southern States to ratify the amendment. The Same Amendment they had just finished rejecting.

The Act dealt with the 10 Southern States which they called the rebel States.

It began by declaring that there is no Legal State government in these States.

It placed these States under military rule.

Louisiana and Texas were grouped together as the Fifth Military District, an placed under the domination of an army officer appointed by the President.

No, not Lincoln. He was dead by then.

All civilian authorities were placed under the authority of the military government.

The congressional conspirators then added amendments to the Reconstruction act that completely deprived these States of all of their powers of government and self rule, until Congress should approve of the new government they will create. Built to Congress's specifications.

These specifications were rigid and extreme.

Until that happened none of these States will be represented in Congress.

The most amazing and extreme requirement of the Reconstruction Act was that it required each of the 10 Southern States to ratify the 14^th amendment before they would again be represented in Congress.

In Section 3 of the Reconstruction act they flat out said that when you have created a Constitution that we like and elected a legislature that we like and that Legislature ratifies the 14^th amendment, we still won't allow you to be represented in Congress. When the 14^th Amendment is fully ratified and has become part of the Constitution. Then we will let you back in Congress.

Remember that's the amendment that stole your right to be born a King. Now instead of being born a Citizen of a State you are born a citizen of the United States, a freed slave, subject of the federal Government, the new king. The United States Supreme Court told us so.

The States would remain under military authority until they complied, with the requirement that the 14^th amendment be ratified, among others. There was no doubt that these conspirators were forcing the overthrow of the United States.

Senator Doolittle of Wisconsin during the floor debate on the bill said: " My friend has said what has been said all around be, what is said every day: the people of the South have rejected the constitutional amendment, and therefore we will march upon them and force them to adopt it at the point of a bayonet, and establish military power over them until they do adopt it."

If you checked up on me and read the court cases you have seen the Supreme Court go on and on about the intent of the framers of the Constitution. Funny that they never mentioned where the framers of our Constitution intended that 10 of thirty-seven States should be forced, "at the point of a bayonet" to change our constitution.

If our constitution has been changed "at the point of a bayonet", isn't that the overthrow of the United States of America. The point at which we lost our unalienable rights as Sovereign Kings. That overthrow of the United States of America. Funny you didn't learn that in school. Lawyers did. Well, maybe it's not so funny.

These conspirators sent armies into the States and put the States under military rule until they agreed to the overthrow of the United States.

When President Johnson vetoed the Reconstruction Act he talked about its harsh injustices and how much of it was unconstitutional. He justifiably denounced it as declaring 9 million people guilty at once. To have their rights taken away at the point of a gun.

The Conspirators, had two-thirds majority in both houses. They promptly overruled his veto and the 10 Souther States went under Marital law.

The military then set about conditioning the people to be freed Slaves under the rule of the conspirators.

Well, they tried to take it to court. It was so oppressive and obviously unconstitutional. But the Supreme Court refused to hear the case. Three times the Supreme court found some reason for not deciding the obvious. What was going on was blatantly unconstitutional.

There can be little doubt that the Supreme Court was in collusion with the conspirators or at the point of a bayonet themselves.

In one case the supreme Court said that if they ruled that the reconstruction act was unconstitutional, that the Conspirators in Congress might just impeach the president. They had the votes in the rump congress.

In another case the Supreme court said that the overthrow of the United States was a political issue and not a judicial issue.

In the third case, the Supreme Court accepted the case, heard the arguments and was about to decide when the Conspirators in Congress repealed a statute that gave the Supreme court the right to hear the case. The Supreme Court did nothing.

Since the Supreme Court wouldn't do it's job the Southern States were invaded by the army of the conspirators.

Puppet governments were set up in the 10 Southern States under military rule. New State Constitutions were set up conforming to the demands of the Congressional conspirators and, one by one, the puppet State Governments ratified the 14^th amendment and overthrew the United States of America. Poof, there went the rights you think you have.

Finally, in July 1868, seven of the 10 Southern States, run by the puppet governments of the Conspirators, ratified the 14^th amendment. This gave them enough States to Ratify the Amendment. A Joint resolution came from the Conspirators and a proclamation by the Secretary of State both declared that the United States of America had been overthrown. The Kings were kings no more.

There can be no constitutional pretense for the overthrow of our nation. Conspirators in Congress invaded the Southern States with an army. Overthrew the government of the States, put in its own government and passed the 14^th amendment which took away our unalienable rights and birthright. Not only in the South but all over the United States.

To prove that Louisiana was forced to ratify the 14^th amendment all one has to do is look in Act 2 of 1868. The legislative journals show that the reconstruction act intended to and did put military in Louisiana and they did rule the government.

The House journal and the Senate journal shows the reading of instructions from General Grant to the Commanding officer of the Fifth Military District emphasizing the supremacy of the Military power over the provisional civilian government. The military took over Louisiana and ratified the 14^th amendment.

Even then, the government created by the military had trouble getting the 14^th amendment ratified in Louisiana. In the Senate, twenty voted for it and 11 voted against it. The record even contains a protest by Senator Bacon against voting for ratification under force and duress and a useless demand for a free vote.

The fact that ratification of the 14^th amendment came about by force in the Southern States, or, as Senator Doolittle of Wisconsin said; "at the point of a bayonet", after all of these same States had rejected it when freely voting, raises very serious questions about the legality of the 14^th Amendment.

In fact, in the school desegregation case currently before the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court wants more discussion on what the States thought when they ratified this amendment.

It seems to me that the correct question to ask is did the People of the States that ratified this amendment really mean to be be born a freed Slave instead of a King? To have their unalienable rights to be dependent on a bona fide residence, instead of it being a Right granted from the Creator himself.

But, for the Supreme Court to now ask what were the States thinking when they ratified the 14^th amendment, is a perversion of History and a contradiction of plain fact.

The Southern States were thinking that if they weren't holding a gun on us we would throw the 14^th amendment out and end the overthrow of the United States.

Even if the use of force, under the reconstruction act, was not enough reason to nullify the ratification of the 14^th amendment, what good would it do to see what the puppet government thought of the amendment? They weren't representing the Kings of the States, they were misrepresenting them.

As soon as the army left, the Southern States tore apart these puppet governments and disclaimed everything that went with them.

But, the question goes much deeper than whether the puppet government of the Conspirators in the federal Government was authorized to express the contemplation and understanding of the 14^th amendment that you now want to deliberate.

The question is really, should these forced ratification be declared null and void and therefore the 14^th amendment is null and void.

The "rump" Congress of conspirators had no constitutional right to even engage in the ratification process beyond simply proposing it. There can be no doubt that, by force of arms, this "rump congress of Conspirators did overthrow the United States of America and dethrone all of its kings.

For the Supreme Court of the time to say that these question are political and not judicial must be considered the act of an accomplice to the overthrow of the United States.

Now, some people might say that after more than 80 years it's too late to change things. (Remember this story was written in the law journals in 1953)

Well, the answer is that there is no statute of limitations that will cover such a gross violation of our Constitution as the overthrow of the United States by a band of conspirators in control of the Central government and the Army.

We understand that since we are all freed slaves we are all equal, black and white, but, the Supreme court has let illegal things go on before.

In 1895 when the Federal Government instituted an illegal income tax the Supreme Court kept quiet for over 30 years. The Supreme court in 1895 said that this was a legal tax although they knew that it wasn't. It took 30 years before we could get the Supreme court to admit that it was illegal

In a recent case ending the exclusion of Negroes from restaurants in the District of Columbia, the court found a law dating back to 1870 that had never been used and was thought, by the lower courts to been repealed and used that to justify its argument.

If the Supreme Court keeps trying to integrate our schools we are going to have to demand that we take another look at the 14^th amendment.

There you have it. The lawyers confessing that they know that the United States has been overthrown. The lawyers know how and when our right to be Kings was stolen. The lawyers are confessing that they know that the once Sovereign people of the United States are now no better than freed slaves.

The lawyers are out right confessing to blackmailing the United States Supreme Court. Either you keep those Negroes in their place or well tell everyone about the overthrow of the United States. Does the terms co-conspirators and traitors come to mind? Could it be that lawyers deserve their reputation? What more do you want, they confessed.

Curious that you didn't hear this story in school.