The North Carolina Legislature protested [by "Resolution" of December 6, 1866] as follows:
"The Federal Constitution declare, 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 would arrive at a different conclusion." North Carolina Senate Journal, 1866-67, pp. 92 and 93.
"By spurious, non-representative governments; seven of the southern States, (which had theretofore rejected the proposed Amendment under the duress of military occupation and of being denied representation in Congress), did attempt to ratify the proposed Fourteenth Amendment. The Secretary of ;State, (of July 20, 1868), issued his proclamation wherein he stated that it was his duty under the law to cause Amendments to be published and certified as a part of the Constitution when he received official notice that they had been adopted pursuant to the Constitution. Thereafter his certificate contained the following language:"
"And whereas neither the Act just quoted from, nor any other law, expressly or by conclusive implication., authorizes the Secretary of State to determine and decide doubtful questions as to the authenticity of the organization of State legislatures, or as to the power of any State legislature to recall a previous act or resolution of ratification of any amendment proposed to the Constitution;"
"And whereas it appears from official documents on file in this Department that the amendment to the Constitution of the United States, proposed as aforesaid, has been ratified by the legislatures of the States of [naming 23, including New Jersey, Ohio, and Oregon];"
"And whereas it further appears from documents on file in this Department that the amendment to the Constitution of the United States, proposed as aforesaid, has also been ratified by newly constituted and newly established bodies avowing themselves to be and acting as the legislatures, respectively, of the States of Arkansas, Florida, North Carolina, Louisiana, South Carolina, and Alabama;"
"And whereas it further appears from official documents on file in this Department that the legislatures of two of the States first above enumerated, to wit, Ohio and New Jersey, have since passed resolutions respectively withdrawing the consent of each of said States to the aforesaid amendment; and whereas it is deemed a matter of doubt and uncertainty whether such resolutions are not irregular, invalid, and therefore ineffectual for withdrawing the consent of the said two States, or of either of them, to the aforesaid amendment;"
"And whereas the whole number of States in the United States is thirty-seven, to wit: [naming them];"
"And whereas the twenty-three States first hereinbefore named, whose legislatures have ratified the said proposed amendment, and the six States next there after named, as having ratified the said proposed amendment by newly constituted and established legislative bodies, together constitute three fourths of the whole number of States in the United States;"
"Now, therefore, be it known that I, WILLIAM H. SEWARD, Secretary of State of the
United States, by virtue and in pursuant of the second section of the act of Congress,
approved the twentieth of April, eighteen hundred and eighteen, hereinbefore cited, do
hereby certify that if the resolutions of the legislatures of Ohio and New Jersey
ratifying the aforesaid amendment are to be deemed as remaining of full force and effect,
notwithstanding the subsequent resolutions of the legislatures of those States, which
purport to withdraw the consent of said States from such ratification, then the aforesaid
amendment had been ratified in the manner hereinbefore mentioned, and so has become valid,
to all intents and purposes, as a part of the Constitution of the United States." ***
(15 Stat. 707 (1868))"
Dyett v. Turner 439 p2d 266 @ 269, 20 U2d 403
"Congress was not satisfied with the proclamation as issued and on the next day passed a Concurrent Resolution wherein it was resolved:"
"That said Fourteenth Article is hereby declared to be a part of the Constitution of the United States, and it shall be duly promulgated as such by the Secretary of State."
"Resolution set forth in proclamation of Secretary of State, (15 Stat. 709
[1868])."
See also U.S.C.G., Amends. 1 to 5, Constitution, p. 11
"Thereupon; William H. Seaward, the Secretary of State (after setting forth the Concurrent Resolution of both Houses of Congress) then certified that the Amendment:"
"Has become valid to all intents and purposes as a part of the Constitution of the
United States." (15 Stat. 708 [1868])"
Dyett v. Turner 439 p2d 266 @ 269, 20 U2d 403
"The Constitution of the United States is silent as to who should decide whether a
proposed Amendment has or has not been passed according to formal provisions of Article V
of the Constitution. The Supreme Court of the United States is the ultimate authority on
the meaning of the Constitution and has never hesitated in a proper case to declare an Act
of Congress unconstitutional except when the Act purported to amend the
Constitution."
Dyett v. Turner 439 p2d 266 @ 269, 20 U2d 403
"In the case of Laser v. Garnet 258 U.S. 130, 42 SECT. 217, 66 LED. 505, the question was before the Supreme Court as to whether or not the Nineteenth Amendment had been ratified pursuant to the Constitution. In the last paragraph of the decision the Supreme Court said:"
"As the legislatures of Tennessee and of West Virginia had power to adopt the resolutions of ratification, official notice to the Secretary, duly authenticated, that they had done so, was conclusive upon him, and, being certified to by his proclamation, is conclusive upon the courts." Dyett v. Turner 439 p2d 266 @ 269, 20 U2d 403
"The duty of the Secretary of State was ministerial, to wit, to count and
determine when three fourths of the States had ratified the proposed Amendment. He could
not determine that a State, once having rejected a proposed Amendment, could thereafter
approve it; nor could he determine that a State, once having ratified that proposal, could
thereafter reject it. The Supreme Court, and not Congress, should determine whether the
Amendment process be final or would not be final, whether the first vote was for
ratification or rejection."
Dyett v. Turner 439 p2d 266 @ 269, 20 U2d 403
"In order to have 27 States ratify the Fourteenth Amendment, it was necessary to count those States which had first rejected and then under the duress of military occupation had ratified, and then also to count those States which initially ratified but subsequently rejected the proposal." Dyett v. Turner 439 p2d 266 @ 269, 20 U2d 403
"To leave such dishonest counting to a fractional part of Congress is dangerous in the extreme. What is to prevent any political party having control of both Houses of Congress from refusing to seat the opposition and then passing a Joint Resolution to the effect that the Constitution is amended and that it is the duty of the Administrator of the General Services Administration to proclaim the adoption?"
"Would the Supreme Court of the United States still say the problem was political
and refuse to determine whether constitutional standards had been met?"
Dyett v. Turner 439 p2d 266 @ 269, 20 U2d 403
The United States is still a British Colony; Part 1
The United States is still a British Colony; Part 2