Paul Andrew Mitchell: Notes and Resources

Many thanks to Randy Maugans,
for the wonderful discussion on his Internet radio program
this evening:
>  provide your  winning BRIEF – to Dist. Ct. Calif- that was dismissed
(names were changed, to protect the privacy of families)
Later, Vaughn R. Walker turned up withOUT a license to practice law:
(scroll down to “walker.vaughn”)

>  the UTAH case “DIATT” ????  re: citizenship history, etc

 v. Turner:

See also the 2 Law Review articles linked in Footnote (8).

And, there is much more on the failed 14th “amendment” here:

You’re very welcome!

Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Private Attorney General, 18 U.S.C. 1964


Following are some base lines for the show with Paul Andrew Mitchell”
Why didn’t the 1866 Civil Rights Act operate as a Group Naturalization Law 

for blacks freed by the 13th Amendment?

Hi Randy,

I’m anticipating that at least one of your listeners may call in
to ask this very pivotal question:

Why didn’t the 1866 Civil Rights Act operate as a Group Naturalization Law
for blacks freed by the 13th Amendment?

Clearly, because of the holding in the Dred Scott decision,
a proper constitutional amendment was needed, and
Congress could not remove the obstacles identified in that decision
solely by means of Federal legislation enacted by the Congress.

So, why wasn’t the 13th Amendment sufficient when taken
together with the 1866 Civil Rights Act?

I think it’s fair to say that the 13th Amendment did not confer
citizenship of any kind:  it merely prohibited slavery and
involuntary servitude.

So, I tend to agree with the Radical Republicans who argued
that additional laws were needed to confer citizenship on
blacks who were freed by that Amendment.

Can’t the 1866 Civil Rights Act be regarded as a kind of “group naturalization” law?

This is an excellent question, for many reasons.

First and foremost, Congress has always had the power
to enact uniform rules of naturalization.  The very first
Naturalization Act was enacted by Congress in 1790.

Let’s say that, instead of the exact language that
Congress wrote into the 1866 Civil Rights Act,
Congress made its intent crystal clear as follows:

(1)  free blacks can become State Citizens
by either registering to vote, or by applying
with the nearest State court of general jurisdiction
or with any Federal court of general jurisdiction.

In my opinion, the combination of the 13th Amendment
and such a group naturalization law might have been
sufficient to confer State Citizenship upon all blacks
freed by that crucial Amendment.

This is obviously speculation, and the need for a
another Amendment would either have been
confirmed by subsequent litigation, or
subsequent litigation might have declared
another Amendment legally unnecessary.

Now, let’s go back to the original question:
why did the 1866 Civil Rights Act NOT operate
as a group naturalization law?

I believe the real answer to that question
is to be found in the real intent of Congress
in passing that law.

Some people even today still argue that
changing UPPER-CASE “C” to lower-case “c”
had no particular legal significance and
that everybody knows what “United States” means.

The “real intent” of Congress became painfully obvious
immediately after Congress proposed the 14th amendment.

The language of that proposal clearly reveals
the intent of Congress to recognize two (2)
distinct classes of citizens, the second of
which was intended to operate as a “franchise”
with the District of Columbia.

This conclusion is strongly supported by the
section of that proposal which amounts to a
SECOND privileges and immunities clause.

If Congress has truly intended to confer
State Citizenship upon all freed blacks,
there would have been no need for a
second privileges and immunities clause,
because the organic Constitution already
had a Privileges and Immunities Clause
for State Citizens!

Then, consider all of the horrible machinations that
ensued while State Legislatures were deciding to ratify
or not ratify the 14th amendment proposal.

The Southern States initially voted NO,
while the Northern States were voting YES.

Then, the Northern States got wise and
changed their votes to NO.

Finally, under duress of another military invasion
and military occupation, those Southern States
that had voted NO initially were forced –
at the point of a bayonet — to change their votes to YES.

It was the re-invasion of the Southern States,
under color of the Reconstruction Acts,
which really tipped the hand and revealed
the real intent of Congress.

And, despite all of that extra turmoil
– after the Civil War had ended –
and the twisted way in which only YES votes
were counted by the Secretary of State,
there were STILL only 27 YES votes.

These crucial historical details are recited
in Dyett v. Turner, which is a MUST READ
for anyone who wishes to study this problem
seriously .
Let’s spend some time during the interviewgoing over some of those details:  this may be the very FIRST time that your listening audience has ever heard this shocking story!!

If a State voted YES initially and changed its vote to NO after
comprehending the real intent of Congress in proposing the 14th amendment,
the Secretary of State counted that as a YES vote!

If a State voted NO initially and then changed its vote to YES
under duress of a military re-invasion and military occupation,
the Secretary of State also counted that as a YES vote!!

But, even counting in this crazy and fraudulent manner,
there were STILL only 27 YES votes.

For now, REMEMBER THIS:  27 does not equal 28,
it never has and it never will!

After Nebraska joined the Union, the Secretary of State declared
that 28 States were needed to ratify the so-called 14th amendment.

Footnote 8 in Dyett v. Turner reads:

(8)  For a  more detailed account of how the Fourteenth Amendment
     was forced  upon the Nation, see articles in 11 S.C.L.Q. 484
     and 28 Tul. Rev. 22.

We found both of those Law Review articles on the Internet,
and added them to this Table of Contents in the SLL:  (see items 9 and 10)

The 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and the Threat that it Poses to Our Democratic Government,”
by Pinckney G. McElwee, 11 S.C.L.Q. 484-519 (Vol. 11, No. 4, Summer 1959)

The Dubious Origin of the Fourteenth Amendment,”
by Walter J. Suthon, Jr., 28 Tulane Law Review 22-44 (Vol. XXVIII 1953-1954)

Submit a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>