Even Congress members realize the evils of the 14th.
Below is just a few small samples contained within this very important document.
In a joint action, the states of Georgia and Mississippi brought suit against the President and the Secretary of War. (6 Wall.50-78, 154 U.S. 554)
The Court said that:
The bill then sets forth that the intent and design of the Acts of Congress, as apparent on their face and by their terms, are to overthrow and annul
this existing state government, and to erect another and different government in its place, unauthorized by the Constitution and in defiance of its
guaranties; and that, in furtherance of this intent and design, the defendants, the Secretary of War, the General of the Army, and Major General Pope,
acting under orders of the President, are about setting in motion a portion of the army to take military possession of the state, and threaten to
subvert her government and subject her people to military rule; that the state is holding inadequate means to resist the power and force of the
Executive Department of the United States; and she therefore insists that such protection can, and ought to be afforded by a decree or order of this
court in the premises.
It is recorded that one of the Supreme Court Justices, Grier, protested against the action of the Court as follows:
This case was fully argued in the beginning of this month. It is a case which involves the liberty and rights, not only of the appellant, but of
millions of our fellow citizens. The country and the parties had a right to expect that it would receive the immediate and solemn attention of the
court. By the postponement of this case we shall subject ourselves, whether justly or unjustly, to the imputation that we have evaded the performance
of a duty imposed on us by the Constitution, and waited for Legislative interposition to suppress our action, and relieve us from responsibility. I am
not willing to be a partaker of the eulogy or opprobrium that may follow. I can only say... I am ashamed that such opprobrium should be cast upon the
court and that it cannot be refuted.
The ten states were organized into Military Districts under the unconstitutional Reconstruction Acts, their lawfully constituted Legislatures were
illegally removed by “military force,” and were replaced by rump, so-called Legislatures, seven of which carried out military orders and pretended
to ratify the 14th Amendment as follows:
THE CONSTITUTION STRIKES THE 14th AMENDMENT WITH NULLITY
The defenders of the 14th Amendment contend that the U.S. Supreme Court has decided finally upon its validity. In what is considered the leading case,
Coleman v. Miller, the U.S. Supreme Court did not uphold the validity of the 14th Amendment. In that case, the Court brushed aside constitutional
questions as though they did not exist. For instance, the Court made the following statement:
The legislatures of Georgia, North Carolina, and South Carolina had rejected the amendment in November and December, 1866. New governments were
erected in those States (and in others) under the direction of Congress. The new legislatures ratified the amendment, that of North Carolina on July
4, 1868, that of South Carolina on July 9, 1868, and that of Georgia on July 21, 1868.(58)
The Court gave no consideration to the fact that Georgia, North Carolina, and South Carolina were three of the original states of the Union with valid
and existing constitutions on an equal footing with the other original states and those later admitted into the Union. Congress certainly did not have
the right to remove those state governments and their Legislatures under unlawful military power set up by the unconstitutional Reconstruction Acts,
which had for their purpose the destruction and removal of legal state governments and the nullification of the Constitution.
In Hawke v. Smith, (1920), 253 U.S. 221, 40 S. Ct. 227, the U.S. Supreme Court unmistakably held:
The fifth article is a grant of authority by the people to Congress. The determination of the method of ratification is the exercise of a national
power specifically granted by the Constitution; that power is conferred upon Congress, and is limited to two methods, by action of the Legislatures of
three fourths of the states. Dodge v. Woolsey, 18 How. 331, 348, 15 L.Ed. 401. The framers of the Constitution might have adopted a different method.
Ratification might have been left to a vote of the people, or to some authority of government other than that selected. The language of the article is
plain, and admits of no doubt in its interpretation. It is not the function of courts or legislative bodies, national or state, to alter the method
which the Constitution has fixed. (60)
We submit that in none of the cases in which the Court avoided the constitutional issues involved, did it pass upon the constitutionality of that
Congress which purported to adopt the Joint Resolution for the 14th Amendment, with eighty Representatives and twenty-three Senators forcibly ejected
or denied their seats and their votes on said Resolution, in order to pass the same by a two thirds vote, as pointed out in the New Jersey Legislature
Resolution of March 27, 1868.
As Chief Justice Marshall pointed out for a unanimous Supreme Court in Marbury v. Madison (1 Cranch 136 @ 179):
The framers of the constitution contemplated the instrument as a rule for the government of courts, as well as of the legislature....
Why does a judge swear to discharge his duties agreeably to the constitution of the United States, if that constitution forms no rule for his
If such be the real state of things, that is worse than solemn mockery. To prescribe, or to take this oath, becomes equally a crime....
Thus, the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all
written constitutions.... that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.
The Federal courts actually refuse to hear argument on the invalidity of the 14th Amendment, even when the evidence above is presented squarely by the
Only an aroused public sentiment in favor of preserving the Constitution and our institutions and freedoms under constitutional government, and the
future security of our country, will break the political barrier which now prevents judicial consideration of the unconstitutionality of the
These are just a few of the highlights from this very important document please read it in its entirety and begin to take back our freedoms from this
unlawful government of Democracy.