The "Missing" 13th Amendment - Posted for John Joseph Little Eagle Freeman



The "Missing" 13th Amendment

Even though the Constitution for the United States of America already had provisions against granting titles of nobility -

No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State. - Constitution for the United States of America, Article I, Section 9:

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility. - Constitution for the United States of America Article I, Section. 10.

These two sections are echoing a similar provision contained in the Articles of Confederation.

No State, without the consent of the United States in Congress assembled, shall send any embassy to, or receive any embassy from, or enter into any conference, agreement, alliance or treaty with any King, Prince or State; nor shall any person holding any office of profit or trust under the United States, or any of them, accept any present, emolument, office or title of any kind whatever from any King, Prince or foreign State; nor shall the United States in Congress assembled, or any of them, grant any title of nobility.- Articles of Confederation: Article VI.

Why would our Founding Fathers be so intent on restricting the use of Titles of Nobility?

Quite simple -- Our Declaration of Independence declares all men to be equal.

The granting of Titles of Nobility creates a superior class of Citizens.

Generally, if someone has a Title of Nobility they join cliques and private groups that shun those they consider to be of lesser quality than themselves.

Our Founding Fathers knew that many people were very unhappy about being cut off from the pomp and pageantry of England. It was these people, many of whom already held titles and positions of authority under the Crown, that the ban was aimed at.

If we allow people to claim honors, titles, and privileges it will not be very long before the equality of all men is destroyed and we start on the path to having those who have the money, the power, and the position, in short those who consider themselves to be the elite, make slaves and servants out of the rest of us.

Why, if we already had provisions against the Titles of Nobility would our Congress decide that we needed an Amendment to our Constitution?

Congress proposed a Title of Nobility Amendment in 1789 which did not pass. Congress tried again in 1810. This time it passed through Congress and was submitted to the States for ratification.

If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive, or retain any title of nobility or honour, or shall, without the consent of Congress, accept and retain any present, pension, office, or emolument of any kind whatever, from any emperor, king, prince, or foreign power, such person shall cease to be a citizen of the United States, and shall be incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under them, or either of them. - True 13th Amendment

A considerable controversy has arisen concerning whether or not the Amendment was ratified.

Newly located documents verify the ratification was properly done.

For a detailed chronology of the events surrounding the fraudulent removal of the true 13th Amendment click here.

In order to remove the valid Amendment the people have to have the opportunity to remove it, and they must be in a position of power so they can manipulate the records and deceive the public. They must also have something to gain, or they must be afraid the Amendment will take something away from them.

Is there a group that fits the requirements?

Who would have the opportunity to remove the Amendment?

Only the politicians and those in government service - our public servants.

This group is also in a position of power to where they control what goes into the records and what does not get recorded.

Do they have something to gain?

These are the people who have served as Ambassadors to European Nations and have ties and friendships. These are the people who hold Titles of Nobility and positions of influence with the Kings and Queens of Europe.

Many of these people fought hard for the American Independence not for the Liberty and Freedom, but because they saw a chance to increase their power and influence among their foriegn friends. These people were not bothered by the tea tax, or the other taxes that were imposed - they had large plantations and farms and raised most of what they needed and used.

It was the less affluent people who had to rely on imports of goods in order to live that were bothered by the taxes. But these people had no power, opportunity, or even ability to create a new Republic. It took the educated and the wealthy to put it all together so it would work.

This is not to say that all of the Founding Fathers were not honest in their efforts and their remarks. It only takes a few rotten apples to spoil the whole bushel.

The Constitution does not mention attorney, or lawyer, because it presumed that only residency and age would be the requirements to hold any of the offices created under the Constitution.

In fact, there is a little mentioned clause that precludes attorneys and lawyers from serving in many government offices.

No Senator or Representative shall, during the time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil office under the authority of the United States, which shall have increased during such time; and no person holding any office under the United States, shall be a member of either House during his continuance in office - Article 1, Section 6, Paragraph 2.

Attorneys and lawyers are officers of the court. As such they take an Oath of Office concerning their activities and allegiance to the court. If they are appointed, or elected to any other office under the United States then they have to take an Oath of Office for that position. Can a man serve two masters?

Holding positions in two different Branches of the Government is a violation of the Separation of Powers established in the Constitution.

For an attorney, or lawyer, to be a part of the Legislature is a direct conflict of interest because they are then in a position to create the laws in such a way as to benefit themselves and their associates.

A few years ago there was a big battle going on in the Utah Legislature. It seems that a school teacher who had been elected to the House of Representatives wanted to serve on the education committee. The lawyers stopped her because she would then be in a position to create laws more favorable to the teachers. Nothing was ever said about lawyers who are serving in the Legislature being able to create laws to benefit their profession.

On February 5, 1790, the third day of the U. S. Supreme Court conducting business, "the first three practitioners before the bar were admitted as counselors...and Rules of Court were adopted as to the form of writs and as to the admission of counselors and attorneys." At that time, without any Constitutional authority whatsoever, five United States Supreme Court Justices and Chief Justice John Jay, all former Crown Lawyers, shall be requisite to the admission of attorneys or counselors to practice in this court, that they shall have been such for three years past in the Supreme Court of the State to which they respectively belong...

The Constitution certainly doesn't make any such requirement. And, remember, the Constitution is the Law of the Land. Violating the provisions of the Constitution is no different than breaking any other law.

Then, to compound the situation, on February 8th, 9th, and 10th, the only business transacted was the admission of sixteen further counselors and seven attorneys. Of the nineteen counselors admitted at this first Term..two were Senators and nine were Representatives. This is a clear violation of the Separation of Powers established in Article I, Section 6, Paragraph 2, as stated above.

Whenever someone was appointed as a Crown Lawyer they were granted a Title of Nobility - Esquire - and swore strict allegiance to the King. Our Supreme Court was staffed by Crown Lawyers.

Is it any wonder that the form of the writs adopted were the ones being used in England?

Starting with the Jay Supreme Court the Separation of Powers clause in the Constitution has been totally ignored. Over the years the bulk of the people in our Legislature are attorneys, in direct violation of the provisions We, the People established in our Constitution.

The very first Supreme Court established government by lawyers, and we are still suffering under that problem today.

As we have attempted to demonstrate, there are ongoing unlawful attempts to abrogate and modify our Constitution.

Our freedom is under attack. Not from an armed outside enemy, but from trusted officials whom we have elected, or appointed, to watch over our Life, Liberty, and our Pursuit of Happiness.

There is no more insidious deceit than to be betrayed by an attack from trusted individuals within the system.

These people have violated their Constitutional duties.

Worse still, because they claim the honor of immunity from prosecution.

They have firmly established their private club - the BAR - as the only ones who can practice law. The only ones who can serve as judges. The only ones who can be attorney generals. All in direct defiance of our Constitution.

Yes, the 13th Amendment was unlawfully removed by the attorneys and their associates. If the 13th Amendment were in place we would not have attorneys in the Legislature because most of them would have forfieted their Citizenship because they claimed honors and privileges.

For some reason it has always been the Lawyers and Attorneys who have destroyed the nations.

Jesus Christ condemned the Lawyers when He was at Jerusalem.

Views: 1459

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion


Hello Mr. Monroe,

Please do your homework as I’m not sure how accurate these emails I received are.

I keep them on file so I can send them to anyone who should need and/or are curious about them and the law.

Thank you and pass them around to everyone you know if it’s true.

Thank you again Thomas,



34 minutes ago

What I’m about to share with you, will make you Super-Human before the corrupt court system:

It should come as no surprise that judges don’t know the Constitution based on Anglo Saxon common Law of 1776, when in-fact the Constitution is not actually used or recognized in the court system we now suffer under today.

What this and every other judge is now administrating under is not Constitutional Law, that recognizes your God-given Rights, but contractual commercial law known as:

International Uniform Commercial Code (UCC).

You are assumed to be “corporate property of USA Inc.” when you enter the courtroom.

Please research: “America Is A Corporation”

If you have been following my posts and you should, on this vital issue, you will know that the court system is actually a private foreign owned and controlled corporation that is domiciled at the Financial District of London City, England.

When you step into any courtroom in America, you are now on private foreign owned banking/military property based solely on commerce and not on actual law.

This unlawful and unconstitutional private corporate court system must actually trick you into ignorantly falling under it’s jurisdiction and authority to administer any ruling over you by signing in on a court docket, or verbally consenting to its authority by presenting your name aloud to the court when called forward.

Corporations can only legally recognize and interface with other corporations and the court system is a corporation. You also have been “corporatized” whether you realize it or not since birth.

Research: Birth Certificate and SS#.

Your attorney is an officer of the court and ultimately does not represent you under good faith and full disclosure but, rather the corporate court system.

What I’m about to teach you is one of the most powerful weapons you will ever learn in protecting yourself from this evil and completely fraudulent court system:

I’ve taught this to many others and it works every time. I personally have used what I’m about to teach you against the IRS (which is a private foreign owned corporation as well) the Colorado Department of Revenue Incorporated, Wells Fargo, and Bank of America, with complete success.

When you are before the court: The only words that should ever come out of your mouth are; “I demand Common Law Jurisdiction”.

Then proceed to walk out and don’t stop unless you are held at gun point. Even at gun-point never say anything but that same statement.

Why? Because, the court system that you are in is UCC, and not Common Law.

You have just demanded jurisdiction in another completely different system not under the authority or jurisdiction of that court system, and they can not in any way hold you under their authority or jurisdiction.

Never forget what I’ve just taught you!

Here’s where you have them:

If for any reason an officer of that court system even so much as touches you in anyway, shape or form as you attempt to leave the court room ... you now have a massive lawsuit against the judge, the attorneys and the entire court system!

No court system even UCC, has the authority to make you consent under threat or intimidation. Never forget that.

The only reason the fascist corrupt court system is able to fine and enslave the American People is by its own ignorance and lack of education.

You have all the power and authority not the invading and fraudulent court system.

For more vital documented and vetted information go to:

Knowledge Is Power!

#2 –

Case Law


The POLICE have NO “public immunity”! ...NOR do most others who claim to operate in the “public”. They ALL may be sued without “permission”!

CASE LAW: NC, Rodney Dale Class, fall 2012. He prosecuted the case himself as a “private attorney general (PAG)” under a law of the Federal Act of 1866. He WON both the initial case and the subsequent appeal to that case meaning that it can be cited in court.

Constitutional Concepts Foundation

is dedicated to teaching the American People the precepts, concepts, and principles
that guided our Founding Fathers in their creation of this great nation.

Our mission is to restore a true understanding of the principles behind the
Declaration of Independence and the Constitution for the United States of America,
by defining the powers and the authority that We, the People granted to our governments
in our Federal and State Constitutions,

Only when we fully understand who we really are, and know the truth about
our God given unalienable rights, can we fully enjoy the blessings of
Liberty and Freedom established for us by our Founding Fathers

Our primary objective has to be the education of our youth in the laws of proper government.

In our Republican form of government, We, the People, are ultimately responsible
for the oversight of our government. No knowledge is more important, and no duty
more pressing than communicating these principles to our children, who will be the future
guardians of the liberties of the country.

This Web Site exists for the sole purpose of providing the information, documents, assistance
and encouragement needed for a comprehensive study of the Declaration of Independence,
the Constitution for the United States of America, and the many
other documents pertaining to our Liberty and our Freedom.

We present documents that have been created over the centuries,
and expand upon concepts that have been developed by the great minds of the ages.

These are the concepts and documents that declare, and define,
our Life, our Liberty, and our Freedom -- all part of our God given unalienable rights

You can examine the original version of the Constitution for the United States of America,
with all of old-time spelling and original punctuation retained,
or you can study a detailed analysis of the Constitution with thoughts and hints for deeper study

As our Web Site grows we will offer the same study opportunities for each of the
Constitutions for the several States

Please do not accept anything published herein at face value -- You are responsible for
knowing and understanding the provisions in the Constitution.

Your knowledge is the only way you may properly protect and secure your unalienable rights.

Only by doing your own independent research can you gain the necessary knowledge to
establish in your own minds the knowledge of what is true, and thereby protect yourself
and your family from the persecutions of an unjust government.

Only when we understand, can
We the People
be truly free to enjoy our God given rights of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness

Return to the top of the page

Constitutional Quiz | Truth | Index to Historical Documents | Basic Concepts

Know your rights - the truth will set you free

Index to America's Historical Documents

Early History

The Holy Bible
The Code of Hammurabi - 18th Century BC
The Ten Commandments - 1555 BC

Exploration of America

Magna Carta - May 28, 1215
Privileges and Prerogatives Granted to Columbus - April 30, 1492
Papal Bull - Inter Caetera - May 4, 1493
Treaty of Tordesillas - June 7, 1494
Christopher Columbus - letter to the King and Queen of Spain - Unda...
Letters Patent to John Cabot - March 5, 1496
Amerigo Vespucci - Letter to Pier Soderini, Gonfalonier of the Repu...
King Ferdinand - Letter to the Taino/Arawak Indians - around 1500
The Constitution of the Iroquois Nations - around 1500

Settlement of America

Charter to Sir Walter Raliegh - March 25, 1584
Instructions for the Virginia Colony - 1606
First Charter of Virginia - April 10, 1606
Second Charter of Virginia - May 23, 16109
Third Charter of Virginia - March 12, 1612
Layden Agreement - 1618
Mayflower Compact - November 11, 1620
The Charter of New England - 1620
An Ordinance and Constitution of the Virgina Company in England - 2...
First Charter of Massachusetts Bay - 1629
Petition of Right - 1628
Extract from Charter of Freedoms and Exemptions to Patroons - June ...
The Fundamental Orders of Connecticut - January 14, 1639
Plantation Agreement at Providence August 27 - September 6, 1640
New England Articles of Confederation - 1643
On Liberty - by John Winthrop - 1645
The Maryland Toleration Act - 1649
Bacon's Declaration in the Name of the People
Governor William Berkely on Bacon's Rebellion - 19 May 1676
The First Thanksgiving Proclamation - June 20, 1676
Edward Randolph - condemns the Massachussetts Bay Company before th...
John Locke - A Letter Concerning Toleration -1689
English Bill of Rights - 1689
John Locke - An Essay concerning the true original, extent and end ...
Penn's Plan of Union - 1697
Pennsylvania Charter of Privileges, 28 October 1701
The Act of Settlement - 1701
The Act of Union - 1707
Robert Beverley on Bacon's Rebellion The North Carolina Biennal Act...
Benjamin Franklin - A Modest Enquiry into the Nature and Necessity ...
Governor Gabriel Johnston's request to repeal the North Carolina Bi...
Disposition of the North Carolina Biennal Act - 1737
Massachusetts House of Representatives on the Governor's Salary - 1...

Revolutionary Period

Marquis de la Galissoniere - Memoir on the French Colonies in North...
Petition: Reasons for making bar, as well as Pig or Sow-Iron in his...
Reason against a general Prohibition of The Iron Manufacture in his...
Albany Plan of Union
Governor Glen,The Role of the Indians in the Rivalry Between France...
Treaty of Paris 1763
Daniel Dulany - Considerations on the Propriety of Imposing Taxes
in the British Colonies, for the Purpose of rasing a Revenue, by Ac...

Soame Jenyns - The Objections to the Taxation of our American Colon...
Resolutions of the Stamp Act Congress - October 19, 1765
William Pitt's speech on the Stamp Act
Captain Thomas Preston's Account of the Boston Massacre - 13 march ...
First Continental Congress - October 1774
Declaration and Resolves of the First Continental Congress - Octobe...
The Articles of Association - October 20, 1774
The Charlotte Town Resolves - 1775
Daniel Leonard - Letters adressed to the Inhabitants of the Provinc...
John Adams - Novanglus - February 6, 1775
Edmund Burke - Speech on conciliation with America, March 22, 1775
Declaration of the Causes and Necessity of taking up Arms - July 6,...
The rough draft of the Declaration of Independence - 28 June, 1776
Declaration of Independence - 1776
Thomas Paine - Common Sense - 1776
Charles Inglis - The True Interest of America Impartially Stated - ...
The Virginia Declaration of Rights - June 12, 1776 
Thomas Jefferson - On Slavery
Thomas Jefferson - Draft For A Bill For Establishing Religious Free...
Thomas Paine - American Crisis - 1780-83

The Nation is Established

Articles of the Confederation - 1781
The Paris Peace Treaty -Sept 3, 1783
Treaty with the Six Nations - 1784
James Madison - Memorial and Remonstrance -1785 - ca. 20 June 1785
The Annapolis Convention - 1786
Journal of the Federal Convention - James Madison - 1787
Volume 1
Volume 2
The Northwest Ordinance - July 13, 1787

Constitution for the United States of America - September 17, 1787
The Federalist Papers - October 27, 1787
Treaty with the Six Nations - Fort Hamar - January 9, 1789
James Madison - Proposed Amendments to the Constitution - June 8, 1789
Judiciary Act of 1789
Bill of Rights - 1791
Thomas Paine - The Rights of Man - 1791-1792
The Proclamation of Neutrality - 1793
The Jay Treaty - 1794
Thomas Paine - The age of Reason - 1794
Treaty of Greenville - 1795
The Canandaigua Treaty of 1794 - November 11, 1794
Treaty between the United States and the Oneida, Tuscorora and Stockbridge Indians living in the country of the Oneidas - December 2, 1794
Virginia Resolution - 1798
Kentucky Resolution - 1799
The Sedition Act - July 14, 1798
John Adams - Thoughts on Government
Treaty of Ghent - December 24, 1811
The Monroe Doctrine - 1823
The Book of Mormon - 1830
Treaty with the New York Indians - Buffalo Creek, New York - January 15, 1838
The Doctrine and Covenants - 1844
The Pearl of Great Price - 1844
The Seneca Falls Declaration - Elizabeth Cady Stanton - 1848
The Law - Frederic Bastiat - 1850
Theory of Common Law - 1852

A Nation at War

Constitution of the Confederate States of America - 1861
Abraham Lincoln - The Emancipation Proclamation - Issued September 22, 1862 - to be Effective - January 1, 1863
Abraham Lincoln - The Gettysburg Address - November 19, 1863
President Lincoln's Amnesty Proclamation - December 8, 1863
Samuel Chase Letter to William Fessenden on Banking - 1863
President Johnson's Amnesty Proclamation - May 29, 1865
The First Reconstruction Act - March 2, 1867
The Second Reconstruction Act - March 23, 1867
The Third Reconstruction Act - July 19, 1867

A Nation Once More

Navajo Treaty of 1868 - Fort Sumner, New Mexico, June 1, 1868
Blanche K. Bruce - Speech in the Senate - March 31, 1876
Common Law - Oliver Wendell Holmes - 1881
16th Amendment - Solicitor General's Opininion Letter - February 15, 1913
Franklin Delano Roosevelt - Pearl Harbor Speech - December 8, 1941
Franklin D. Roosevelt and Winston S. Churchill - The Atlantic Charter - August 14.1941
Georgia Resolution to Rescind the 14th and 15th Amendments - March 8, 1957
Documents on the Cuban Missile Crisis - Address by President Kennedy - October 22, 1962
Martin Luther King - "I have a dream" Speech - August, 28, 1963
George C. Wallace - The Civil Rights Movement: fraud, sham and hoax - July 4, 1964
Opinion of Judge Perez - 14th Amendment Unconstitutional
Congressman Rarick (LA) - Congressional Record - June 13, 1967
Decision of the Utah Supreme Court against the 14th Amendment - 1968
Ronald Reagan - Speech to the House of Commons - June 8, 1982

Constitutional Quiz | Truth | Index to Historical Documents | Basic Concepts

Return to Home Page

Other Comments of Interest

Please direct all comments to:

In 1868, the "Fourteenth Amendment" was declared ratified by Secretary of State William Seward and was adjoined to the United States Constitution. This "Amendment," which Black's Law Dictionary acknowledges as having created "for the first time citizenship of the United States," has since been used to enslave millions of Americans to the voluminous statutes of the Abraham Lincoln's de facto "new nation," particularly the Internal Revenue Code. In this treatise, Judge Perez of Louisiana presented irrefutable evidence that the socialist democracy which has usurped our Christian Republic is founded squarely upon a sham.


The Unconstitutionality of the Fourteenth Amendment
How the Southern States Were Illegally Excluded
From Congress During Reconstruction

by Judge L.H. Perez


The purported Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is and should be held to be ineffective, invalid, null, void, and unconstitutional for the following reasons:

1. The Joint Resolution proposing said Amendment was not submitted to or adopted by a Constitutional Congress as required by Article 1, Section 3, and Article V of the U.S. Constitution.

2. The Joint Resolution was not submitted to the President for his approval as required by Article 1, Section 5 of the U.S. Constitution.

3. The proposed Fourteenth Amendment was rejected by more than one fourth of all the states in the Union, and it was never ratified by three fourths of all the states in the Union as required by Article V, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution.

Eleven States Unlawfully Excluded From Congress

The U.S. Constitution provides:

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State....(1)

No State, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.(2)

The fact that twenty-three Senators had been unlawfully excluded from the U.S. Senate in order to secure a two thirds vote for the adoption of the Joint Resolution proposing the Fourteenth Amendment is shown by Resolutions of protest adopted by the following state Legislatures. The New Jersey Legislature by Resolution on March 27, 1868, protested as follows:

The said proposed amendment not having yet received the assent of three fourths of the states, which is necessary to make it valid, the natural and constitutional right of this state to withdraw its assent is undeniable....

That it being necessary by the Constitution that every amendment to the same should be proposed by two thirds of both houses of Congress, the authors of said proposition, for the purpose of securing the assent of the requisite majority, determined to, and did, exclude from the said two houses eighty representatives from eleven states of the Union, upon the pretense that there were no such states in the Union; but, finding that two thirds of the remainder of the said houses could not be brought to assent to the said proposition, they deliberately formed and carried out the design of mutilating the integrity of the United States Senate, and without any pretext or justification, other than the possession of the power, without the right, and in the palpable violation of the Constitution, ejected a member of their own body, representing this state, and thus practically denied to New Jersey its equal suffrage in the Senate, and thereby nominally secured the vote of two thirds of the said house.(3)

The Alabama Legislature protested against being deprived of representation in the Senate of the U.S. Congress.(4)

The Texas Legislature, by Resolution on October 15, 1866, protested as follows:

The Amendment to the Constitution proposed by this joint resolution as Article XIV is presented to the Legislature of Texas for its action thereon, under Article V of that Constitution. This Article V, providing the mode of making amendments to that instrument, contemplates the participation by all the States through their representatives in Congress, in proposing amendments. As representatives from nearly one third of the States were excluded from the Congress proposing the amendments, the constitutional requirement was not complied with; it was violated in letter and in spirit; and the proposing of these amendments to States which were excluded from all participation in their initiation in Congress, is a nullity.(5)

The Arkansas Legislature, by Resolution on December 17, 1866, protested as follows:

The Constitution authorized two thirds of both houses of Congress to propose amendments; and, as eleven States were excluded from deliberation and decision upon the one now submitted, the conclusion is inevitable that it is not proposed by legal authority, but in palpable violation of the Constitution.(6)

The Georgia Legislature, by Resolution on November 9, 1866, protested as follows:

Since the reorganization of the State government, Georgia has elected Senators and Representatives. So has every other State. They have been arbitrarily refused admission to their seats, not on the ground that the qualifications of the members elected did not conform to the fourth paragraph, second section, first Article of the Constitution, but because their right of representation was denied by a portion of the States having equal but not greater rights than themselves. They have in fact been forcibly excluded; and, inasmuch as all legislative power granted by the States to the Congress is defined, and this power of exclusion is not among the powers expressly or by implication defined, the assemblage, at the capital, of representatives from a portion of the States, to the exclusion of the representatives of another portion, cannot be a constitutional Congress, when the representation of each State forms an integral part of the whole.

This amendment is tendered to Georgia for ratification, under that power in the Constitution which authorizes two thirds of the Congress to propose amendments. We have endeavored to establish that Georgia had a right, in the first place, as a part of the Congress, to act upon the question, "Shall these amendments be proposed?" Every other excluded State had the same right. The first constitutional privilege has been arbitrarily denied. Had these amendments been submitted to a constitutional Congress, they would never have been proposed to the States. Two thirds of the whole Congress never would have proposed to eleven States voluntarily to reduce their political power in the Union, and at the same time, disfranchise the larger portion of the intellect, integrity, and patriotism of eleven co-equal States.(7)

The Florida Legislature, by Resolution on December 5, 1866, protested as follows:

Let this alteration be made in the organic system and some new and more startling demands may or may not be required by the predominant party previous to allowing the ten States now unlawfully and unconstitutionally deprived of their right of representation is guaranteed by the Constitution of this country and there is no act, not even that of rebellion, can deprive them.(8)

The South Carolina Legislature, by Resolution on November 27, 1866, protested as follows:

Eleven of the Southern States, including South Carolina, are deprived of their representation in Congress. Although their Senators and Representatives have been duly elected and have presented themselves for the purpose of taking their seats, their credentials have, in most instances, been laid upon the table without being read, or have been referred to a committee, who have failed to make any report on the subject. In short, Congress has refused to exercise its Constitutional functions, and decide either upon the election, the return, or the qualification of these selected by the States and people to represent us. Some of the Senators and Representatives from the Southern States were prepared to take the test oath, but even these have been persistently ignored, and kept out of the seats to which they were entitled under the Constitution and laws.

Hence this amendment has not been proposed by "two thirds of both Houses" of a legally constituted Congress, and is not, Constitutionally or legitimately, before a single Legislature for ratification.(9)

The North Carolina Legislature, by Resolution on December 6, 1866, protested as follows:

The Federal Constitution declares in substance, that Congress shall consist of a House of Representatives, composed of members apportioned among the respective States in the ratio of their population and of a Senate, composed of two members from each State. And in the Article which concerns Amendments, it is expressly provided that "no State, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate." The contemplated Amendment was not proposed to the States by a Congress thus constituted. At the time of its adoption, the eleven seceding States were deprived of representation both in the Senate and House, although they all, except the State of Texas, had Senators and Representatives duly elected and claiming their privileges under the Constitution. In consequence of this, these States had no voice on the important question of proposing the Amendment. Had they been allowed to give their votes, the proposition would doubtless have failed to command the required two thirds majority....

If the votes of these States are necessary to a valid ratification of the Amendment, they were equally necessary on the question of proposing it to the States; for it would be difficult, in the opinion of the Committee, to show by what process in logic, men of intelligence, could arrive at a different conclusion.(10)

Article I, Section 7 of the United States Constitution provides that not only every bill have been passed by the House of Representatives and the Senate of the United States Congress, but that:

Every order, resolution, or vote to which the concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the same shall take effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the rules and limitations prescribed in the case of a bill.

The Joint Resolution proposing the Fourteenth Amendment(11) was never presented to the President of the United States for his approval, as President Andrew Johnson stated in his message on June 22, 1866. Therefore the Joint Resolution did not take effect.

Amendment Not Ratified by Three Fourths of the States

Pretermitting the ineffectiveness of said Resolution, as demonstrated above, fifteen states out of the then thirty-seven states of the Union rejected the proposed Fourteenth Amendment between the date of its submission to the states by the Secretary of State on June 16, 1866, and March 24, 1868, thereby further nullifying said Resolution and making it impossible for its ratification by the constitutionally required three fourths of such states, as shown by the rejections thereof by the Legislatures of the following states:

(SUPPER follow)

Sir,  When  the  truth  Hurts~~Wear IT, See  It,  say  it  proudly with  Honor...!!Salute  Ron

END the FED is more than a movement. We desperately need the fired and recently retired Military Officers to eliminate the entire federal government. Every Independent Sovereign Republic has everything it needs right up to their own individual Constitutions and Supreme Courts. Every (ISR) has commercial items for sale or trade with each other. The military would be used to defend of any (ISR) requesting it.

    I completely agree with you Tony, but do you not need to declare your status as a state national, state citizen, non citizen national, or some other terminology other than a United States citizen? 

    Thank You Tony. I will check it out as soon as time permits. This forum is great. People who love God, rights, liberty, and freedom, and are not afraid to say so.

He's promoting  voter the video.

LadyFloridaCracker - Has the FBI been notified of this video.  Promoting voter fraud is a crime.


Big Eagle!  Unfortunately, I don't know. :(

Yeshua not only challenged lawyers, but displayed righteous anger physically against "money-changers" in the temple taking advantage of God's people wanting to honorably pursue their relationship with Him.

WHo do U think has pulled the strings of those supposed "in charge"?   WHo profits from war, discord, division?  Ever hear of "follow the money"?  THis enlightening jewel reveals much in < 9 min. regarding the source of many issues: "Arresting a Corrupt Lawyer/Bureaucrat"   

While attending a liberty conference one was invited by a state governor candidate to conduct live radio interview to introduce this comprehensive peaceful & lawful SOLUTION applicable to America & the world; to access recording:  select Just The Facts,  then: 14-10-25 Just The Facts.mp3   Then see & hear “NOW Declaration of Independence” @   with reference to QW copy source for awareness & distribution.

Blessings 2 ALL Liberty-lovers & those who benefit from BEing & DOing same  :D



Old Rooster created this Ning Network.

This effort is focused on sacrifice to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic.

Fox News

Tech Notes

Thousands of Deadly Islamic Terror Attacks Since 9/11


1. Click on State Groups tab at the top of the page.
2. Find your State Flag
3. Click on Flag.
4. Look for link to join Your State Group near the top of the State Groups page.
5. Click on it.

Follow the Prompts

How to post "live" URL in posts at PFA............. Adding URLs in blog posts that are not "live" is a waste of everyone's time.....
Here's how....if anyone has better guidance send to me.....
First........type your text entry into the post block to include typing or paste the URL you want us to view........when finished with the text, highlight and copy the URL in the text.......then click the "add hyperlink" tool in the B, I, U box just above the text entry, after clicking, a window will open asking for the URL...paste the URL in the box and click "OK". You have now made the URL "live" shows some code before the post is published, it goes away when you "publish post".......


© 2020   Created by Old Rooster.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service