top of page


For all

Attached is Exhibit 5 to be placed in our petition to the President and principal leaders of Congress should the petition fail to acquire their help to put down the criminal insurgent oligarchy enslaving the private Americans without recourse otherwise who reside within the States and District of California, Colorado, and New Mexico. Incidentally, my studies have revealed that several states discontinued requiring their state public officers to give a personal recognizance bond binding them to their oaths of office in 1962. I haven't found out why Year 1962 was selected, but it may have been the Supreme Court case: Stump v. Sparkman in 1979 since that case has been cited numerous times concerning judicial immunity. That was the case where a judge authorized denaturing a teenage promiscuous female to prevent the parents from having to care of the birth of unwanted babies. Her lawyer boyfriend brought the lawsuit that ended up in the Supreme Court.



Honorable Barack H. Obama

Office of the President

United States of America

1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW

Washington, D.C. 20500

Honorable John A. Boehner

Office of the House Speaker

House of Representatives

Congress of the United States


VVashington, D.C. 20515

Honorable Harry Reid

Office of U.S. Senate Majority Leader

United States Senate

Congress of the United States

522 Hart Senate Office Building

Washington, D.C. 20510

Kenneth Gomez

De Jure Governor of New Mexico

4 CR5095

Bloomfield,New Mexico 87413

January 15, 2013

RE: First Amendment Peaceable Assembly to Petition Government for Redress of



Attached are two copies for each addressee of our First Amendment Petition

for the redress of scandalous grievances inflicted by criminal insurgents posing as

state and federal officers under false pretenses which enslave the populations of

California, Colorado, and New Mexico as crimes against their humanity without

recourse in any court of law at any level of government. Taxes, under such

circumstances, of every type are immoral, reprehensible, and unconscionable.

Our hope is that each of you will do your sworn duty to cure the defect

reported without delay and in clear view of the public-at-large.


Kenneth Gomez

Attached: Two Copies of Petition to each addressee

1st Amendment to Petition Government for Redress of Insurgent Grievances






SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE, and SENATE                           │

MAJORITY LEADER,                                                            │


Offices Petitioned,                                                                     │



Attached First Amendment Petitioners.                                   │





1. Petitioners are being denied a political voice to determine who will govern them, and how

they will be governed under the applicable constitutions and statutes; they are also being

deprived of an economic stake in both state and federal public appropriated funds for their

health, safety, and welfare by imposters posing as state and federal public officers in California,

Colorado, and New Mexico. Petitioners are currently enslaved under those conditions without

recourse to political, judicial, economic, cultural, or law enforcement remedies. Said imposters

are insurgents against our constitutions; they deny the power of both constitutions, while defying

the authorities of statutes giving those powers effect so that we, the enslaved, are at the

oppressive core of concentric circles representing various levels of government in a joint turnscrew

type tortuous force for whatever exploits serve the insurgent interests. The only relief

available for those enslaved, other than this Petition is an appeal to a foreign embassy's 'good

offices' hoping they will report the criminal insurgent enslavement to the Human Rights

Page 1 of 10 Pages

Committee of the United Nations for consideration by the International Criminal Court as crimes

of enslavement against their humanity, a war crime.


2. Some petitioners have entered various state and federal district and circuit courts of law

exposing the state criminal insurgencies; they did so while being denied a political voice in state

courts as pro se litigants a waste of personal funds so that they can now claim that: "the cloth in

the symbol of justice covering what once were the eyes are now just covering open sores."

3. Supreme Court of the United States consideration was not sought by petitioners in that

pro se litigants with civil causes cannot appear before justices of that court on grounds: (a) it

cannot produce any credible evidence that pro se litigants in civil cases have ever been permitted

to proceed before the justices when peaceably assembling to petition their governments for

redress of their grievances; (b) the petitioners declare that the court has absolutely no

constitutional judicial power of review to decide constitutional issues' because their power is

limited only to: (A) statutory issues concerning human rights declared in the Declaration of

Independence, and (8) civil rights issues created by statutes of the United States Congress, and

(C) treaty disputes; (c) the Court is too busy amending the Constitution of the United States of

America by its decisions; (d) no current justice has given a personal recognizance bond as their

individual contract consideration to the public binding them, under provisions of Article VI,

Clause 3, Constitution of the United States of America, to the promises contained in the oath in

order to acquire the public trust, as the publics' contract consideration, so the justices could enter


I See Exhibit" I" for flaw in Chief Justice Marshal's Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803) reasoning justifying

Supreme Court judicial review of constitutional issues and the subsequent result of that flaw giving Congress

unlimited power under that reasoning in McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316, 4 L.Ed. 579, 4 Wheat. 316

(1819), a decision responsible for numerous federal legislation exercising powers not granted

Congress in the Constitution of the United States of America.

Page 2 of 10 Pages

public office and perform the duties of their office; and (e) the members of the court have

established, by their prior decisions, that they do not know the difference between a sovereign

entity - the American People - and a statutory entity, any constitutional or government created

entity. No sovereign power was ever granted that court under the Constitution - see Article III,

Section 2; federal statutes, court decisions, and court rules that amend the constitution to the

contrary, notwithstanding. Until all state and federal courts of law understand who is sovereign

in this Nation and who is a statutory authority, the sovereign people of the Nation, the American

Citizen, cannot invoke Rule 60(b)(4) provisions before an elected or appointed judge with a

personal recognizance bond binding them to the promises in the oath of office who is lawfully

assigned duties in a statutory courts for ultimate consideration in the one truly constitutional

court with statutory authority. Petitioners shall not be able to acquire compensation for their

injuries and damages inflicted upon them by various criminal insurgent authorities; injuries and

damages which include foreclosures on their residences and immoral income taxes imposed them

under conditions of a system of peonage.

    4. In view of the foregoing three paragraphs, enslaved petitioners have no state or federal

constitutional or statutory court available to them for exercising their First Amendment right to

peaceably assemble and petition their governments for redress of their grievances.


5. Petitioner Kenneth Gomez was denied his political voice to determine the executive

affairs of New Mexico under the constitution and laws of the state as its governor in 2009 when

he was the only qualified candidate under that constitution and attendant statutes to be Governor

of New Mexico. He was denied that office by one criminal insurgent, the person posing as

secretary of state after canvassing the vote at conclusion of the election for the governor's office,

Page 3 of 10 Pages

an insurgent who assigned the office to another criminal insurgent, both of whom were

embezzling state public appropriations at all times pertinent in excess of $20,000.00, a second

degree felony under provisions of Section 30-16-8(A) and (F) NMSA 1978. The voters, who

unknowingly and deliberately kept that way, vote to retain or return these insurgents in office.

   6. The assignment of the governor's office to a criminal insurgent occurred in front of a

person unconstitutionally and unlawfully posing as the Chief Justice of the New Mexico Supreme

Court who had been given a written statement of the insurgency specifics by Governor-elect

Kenneth Gomez during the canvassing ceremony in front of several citizen witnesses, an

insurgent who read the statement and then overtly demonstrated an unconscionable disregard

for the treasonous course of conduct reported in the written statement, and who was an active

participant in the criminal insurgency also embezzling public appropriations as a second degree

felon at all times pertinent.

    7. Provisions of both constitutional powers and the attendant statutory authorities for New

Mexico, California, and Colorado which denies all petitioners a political voice to determine who

shall govern them concerning their affairs, and which deprives them of an economic stake in the

expenditure of state and federal publicly appropriated funds solely for the citizens' benefit are

contained in Exhibit "2" attached hereto and fully incorporated herein as an integral part of this

petition; also, see In Re Charge to the Grand Jury, 62 F. 828 (NO Ill. 1894) for definition of an

insurgent, and Section 3, Fourteenth Amendment concerning their inability to hold public office.

The United States Attorney for the various federal districts, the United States Attorney General,

the President of the United States of America, the House Committees on the Judiciary,

Government Oversight, and Appropriations, and the Senate Committee on the Judiciary have all

been informed of the criminal insurgency and the resulting imposed system of peonage upon

                                                     Page 4 of 10 Pages

petitioners that has been provided herein. See Exhibit "3": letters addressed to the said entities

attached hereto, and also incorporated herein as an integral part of this petition.

     8. In view of the foregoing seven paragraphs, the said criminal insurgency has the

inescapable, direct, and specific effect of imposing, upon all petitioners, a system of peonage, a

subspecies of involuntary servitude, denying the power of the Thirteenth Amendment, and

defying the authorities of 14 Stat. 546, currently codified as 42 U.S.C. § 1994 and 18 U.S.C.

§§1581 et seq,; a servitude which holds most citizens deceptively and uninformed of the active

insurgency without recourse to competent courts of law, either state or federal. The process

enslaves petitioners unconditionally by denying the power of the Thirteenth Amendment against

involuntary servitude, and the power of Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment for the due

process of law and the equal protections of the laws. Accordingly, 14 Stat. 546 needs to be

revised and simplified to establish, beyond a shadow of doubt, that denying a citizen of a

political voice by deception or any other means to determine efficaciously those who shall be

entrusted with public office to govern their affairs, and that depriving them of an economic stake

in their publicly appropriated funds for their health, safety, and welfare is a crime of

enslavement against their humanity.

      9. Petitioners possess verifiable and formal written federal evidence of record within the

United States District Court for the District of New Mexico, Colorado, and California, the Court

of Appeals for the Ninth and Tenth Circuit, the Office of the President of the United States of

America, and the various applicable Offices of the Department of Justice that persons posing as

state public officers within the named states are engaged in an insurrection against the state and

national constitutions. Said evidence shows they do so, as national enemies by intentionally

denying the power of both constitutions, and spitefully defying the authorities of statutes giving

Page 5 of 10 Pages

effect to those powers, and by demonstrating those major elements of any insurrection.

Moreover, the said New Mexico, Colorado, and California evidence is contained in Exhibit "2"

and "4": a list of civil cases and letters showing that those holding federal commissions as

judicial officers actively supported the insurgency by written decisions and judgments with utter

and overt disregard for either constitutions or the attendant statutes with indifference, perjuring

the oaths in the process, and doing so with self-serving unconstitutional, unauthorized, and

unjustified immunity, consummate criminal acts in their effect.

         10. Petitioners' evidence contained in Exhibit "3" also shows that state and some federal

imposters receive as salaries under false pretenses and converted, for personal use, public

appropriations as previously indicated, and that they, each and everyone of them, never

constitutionally and statutorily entered the applicable public office now held. Those federal

officers constitutionally and statutorily holding federal commissions were made aware in the list

of written pleadings in Exhibit "3 and "4" of the insurgency under provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 4;

nevertheless, they, jointly and severally, gave, by their acts or omissions, aid and comfort to the

insurgencies by denying the power of the Thirteenth Amendment involuntary servitude

provisions, and the power of Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment human right provisions.

            II. Unfortunately and in conjunction with the preceding ten paragraphs, some of the state

imposter insurgents were nominated by the various presidents to become federal judicial officers

and falsified their Financial Disclosure Statements under provisions of the Ethics in Government

Act which they submitted within thirty days upon being nominated in that they falsely reported,

as insurgent imposter state public officers, their current year's income to be lawful when, in

point of fact, it was actually embezzled state publicly appropriated funds converted for their own

personal use, a fourth degree felony under the Ethics in Government Act.

                                                   Page 6 of 10 Pages

12. In view of the preceding paragraph, there are several such persons currently holding

federal commissions as district and circuit judges under fraudulent pretenses in violation of 18

U.S.C. § 912. Accordingly, they now convert for personal use the federal publicly appropriated

funds received as salaries; the federal courts, where they feloniously serve, are contaminated

thereby, and they all lack competent jurisdiction to act. All other federal judicial officers

lawfully assigned positions therein were notified under provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 4 of their

colleagues felonious course of conduct and they, each one of them, took no demonstrable action

in their individual authority to cure the criminal defect. They effectively perjured their oaths.

            13. In view of the preceding twelve paragraphs, several petitioners had cases in federal courts

of law revealing the state public officer criminal insurgency defect; the cases were summarily

dismissed by ignoring the content of the pleadings without giving facts and conclusions of law.

The decisions were taken to the Ninth and Tenth Circuit Courts of Appeals where the three judge

panels affirmed the lower court decision without comment and prevented their affirmation from

being used as precedence in future proceedings. An en bane application under extraordinary

circumstances was, refused on notice by the Court Clerk that no judge voted - a political act not

authorized - to review the matter indicating that no circuit judge even saw the en bane

application's justification or ignored its content that one of the original panel judges held a

federal commission under false pretenses in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 912, and was embezzling

federal funds.

           14. In view of the thirteen preceding paragraphs, the inaction of all the judicial officers in the

available federal courts of law had the irrevocable and irreconcilable effect, both jointly and

severally, of giving aid and comfort to the criminal insurgencies against the constitution leaving

               Page 7 of 10 Pages

the otherwise free American citizens within their venues subjects of the system of peonage

created by the three State insurgencies without recourse whatsoever.


15. Every attempt employed by one or more petitioners to cure the said constitutional and

statutory defect of the most horrendous and reprehensible form of government resulted in a

wasted effort at personal expense; insurgent efforts were given aid and comfort by judicial

decisions where there was verified evidence: (A) for the existence and breach of a constitutional

and statutory duty, (B) for the existence of a proximate cause, and (C) for the absolute and

complete absence, both jointly and severally, of dispositive defenses available to any individual

insurgent, (D) for which competent government liabilities naturally attach, and (E) for which

damages justifiably flow. }}13 and 16. One last attempt within government must be employed

by petitioners to end the crimes against their humanity before a most objectionable effort before

a foreign embassy is the only course left available. }1.

                V. ARGUMENT

16. Judges in the three states deny the power of both applicable constitutions and defy the

attendant state statutory authorities giving effect to the respective powers. {{5, 8, 11, 12 and 13.

Their effort constitutes an insurrection against the Constitution of the United States of America

automatically denying public office to any person holding a public office. {7. All of the public

officers perjured their individual oath of office by denying the power of various parts of the

constitution and by defying the authorities of the applicable attendant statutes. {12. The

insurgent forces impose a system of peonage against the otherwise free American citizens in the

three states as the resulting crime of enslavement against their humanity which is currently

established, maintained, and enforced by law enforcement authorities at all levels, both state and

            Page 8 of 10 Pages

federal. { 8. Said system of peonage enslaving the affected populations constitutes crimes

against their humanity and became an international crime at its inception. ~{ 15. Accordingly,

only those public officers under oath who are bound by a personal recognizance bond binding

them to the promises in the oath taken that are both appropriately recorded and filed with the

Secretary of State for public scrutiny, as their contract consideration, may enter public office and

perform the specific duties of their office to exercise the public trust, as the publics' contract

consideration; no other possibility exists to enter public office and perform the duties of the

office. { 3. In no case can sovereign power be exercised by insurgents, state or federal. Ibid.

           VI. CONCLUSION

17. Verified evidence pervades the Nation for the existence and breach of a constitutional

and statutory duty by insurgents posing as public officers, there exist a proximate cause thereby,

and there exists an absolute and complete absence of a dispositive defenses for any individual

insurgent posing as a public officer, either jointly or severally, for which competent government

liabilities naturally attach, and for which damages justly flow in competent courts of law. {{ 13,

15, and 16. See Exhibit "6" for the effects of the peonage enslavement by insurgent forces.

           VII. PRAYER

Wherefore Petitioners prays the President of the United States of America: (1) will accept this

Petition with it intended integrity, (2) set the matter down for immediate consideration, (3) seek

confirmation of the evidence provided from whatever sources available, (4) take action to cure

forever the criminal constitutional and statutory defects cited herein which subjugates all the

American people to conditions of involuntary servitude as a crime against their humanity, and

(5) do so on an emergency basis above all others without calculated administrative delays.

Should there be no response to this Petition or without some demonstrable public showing,

  Page 9 of 10 Pages

Petitioners shall have no other alternative but to seek the "good offices" of a foreign embassy for

satisfaction on the international scene.

  Respectfully submitted,


Kenneth Gomez De Jure Governor of New

4 CR 5095

Bloomfield, New Mexico 87413

                  VIII. OTHER SIGNATURES

See Exhibit "5" for additional names, signatures, and addresses of other petitioners attached

hereto as an integral part of this document.


I CERTIFY that four (4) true, correct, and complete copy of the First Amendment

Peaceable Assembly to Petition Government for a Redress of Insurgent Grievances Enslaving

them as Crimes Against Their Humanity within the States and Federal Government Districts and

Circuits of New Mexico, California, and Colorado to the Office of the President of the

United States of America was sent on this 15th day of January, 2013 by first class

U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, to:

Honorable Barack H. Obama

Office of the President

United States of America

1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, D.C. 20500


Kenneth Gomez

De Jure Governor of New Mexico

4 CR 5095

Bloomfield, New Mexico 87413

Page 10 of 10 Pages

Constitutional Powers Detrimentally Misapplied Exhibit 1




BACKGROUND CONCEPTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

FACTS, POWERS, AND AUTHORITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

FIRST ARGUMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

SECOND ARGUMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

THIRD ARGUMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

FOURTH ARGUMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10


This paper challenges the Federal Government’s power or authority to issue extraordinary executive orders, enact legislation, or adjudicate cases directly affecting the citizenry when:

1. The national citizenry is not given a choice by a referendum vote either between

viable alternatives to the statutes – since Congress was never given credible constitutional power to address citizens by law directly affecting their lives, liberties, and the pursuits of happiness, or in the ratification of constitutional changes created by Congress or the state governments;

2. The entire national citizenry does not participate in and is rarely ever represented in

any Federal court cases - including U.S. Supreme Court cases - as a party with standing; and,

3. Constitutional Amendments become or previously became part of the Constitution of

the United States of America on State Legislature approval without a favorable referendum vote of the applicable state electorate in the requisite number of states.


4.There exist three separate, unequal, and independent political entities composing the

United States of America: the nation, the states, and the citizenry; the nation and the states are subordinate to the citizenry, and the states are subordinate to the nation; however, during times when Congress declares a state of war exists, the nation becomes supreme for the defense of all the said entities.

5. Those laws enacted by Congress, given effect by the Federal courts, or enforced by the President directly affecting the citizenry at-large are invalid when no valid constitutional power has ever been granted by the Constitution of the United States of America to any department of the United States Government to do so. This is especially true when:

a. Those amendments to the Constitution of the United States of America which

were added without a favorable referendum vote of the electorate from within the requisite number of state, at times pertinent, can not apply to the citizenry at-large; since, no state was ever given power or authority to communicate for its citizenry without the Executive and Legislature Departments of the applicable state first authorizing a writ of election for a required referendum vote by the respective electorate therein on the constitutional change being considered. Two exceptions exist, the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments, which were the end result of a war between the states.

b. Laws enacted by the Congress of the United States granted by an amendment

created without the requisite number of state referendum votes, during times pertinent, which nevertheless employ the power derived therefrom, are null, void and without legal effect at their inception.

6. Laws enacted under the Necessary and Proper Clause - Article I, Section 8, Clause 18, Constitution of the United States of America – must include what the President judges as necessary from time to time upon recommending them for Congress’s consideration – Article II, Section 3, Constitution of the United States of America - before Congress can determine whether it has a power grant to act upon such recommendations as proper. Heretofore, Congress, in the past, determines first what it considered necessary, and then determines whether what it considered necessary was proper or not exercising ta Supreme Court decision amending the constitution in M’Culloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316, 4 L.Ed. 579, 4 Wheat. 316 (1819). That ‘combination of powers’ in the necessary and proper clause of Article I, Clause 18 was never available to Congress under any circumstance; only the power to determine if what the President sought was proper could Congress consider. Combining those two powers: both the executive and legislative power in congressional hands renders the Executive Department subordinate to Congress, an unconstitutional act.


7. While some of the amendments to the constitution are strongly desirable, some are not.

a. For example, the Eleventh and Sixteenth Amendments come to mind as

undesirable in that neither amendment gave the citizenry any choice in their consideration; only the states exercising their Tenth Amendment power, as single independent political entities, gave their approval without a referendum vote, at any time pertinent; yet, the Eleventh was altered by the Thirteenth which voided its provisions for litigation purposes for failing to grant the citizenry a political voice to choose who possessed and controlled their course of conduct, primary elements of a condition of slavery.

b. Then, the Sixteenth irrevocably altered the power of the Thirteenth by permitting

a tax on a private citizen’s labor, the denial of an unalienable natural right; a labor not constitutionally or statutorily owned, possessed, or controlled by the nation or the state; and a labor which could not be exchanged directly for tax purposes by the private citizen for some benefit without first subjecting the laborer to a no-choice situation among viable alternatives, and then to a condition of involuntary servitude.

8. In the federal judiciary decision rendering process, the chance is great that on constitutional issues, in either civil or criminal cases, the judicial decision will amend the constitution without any lawful power grant by the constitution to do so.


9. The President, by executive orders -- absent a state of war or a time limited national emergency to prevent expedient congressional action -- can employ a power not possessed to deny or defeat the sovereign citizenry power for egocentric purposes.

10. Such anomalies directly affect the citizenry at-large, and they occur either without a grant of constitutional power or by a misinterpretation of constitutional power grant.


11. The Eleventh Amendment was altered by the Thirteenth Amendment in that anything contained in the Constitution of the United States of America that approves of a condition of involuntary servitude on the citizenry, without that affected citizenry having been convicted of a crime in a court of law, shall not exist within the United States or in any place subject to its jurisdiction. The Eleventh Amendment amended the Tenth Amendment which could not be amended on grounds the constitution which authorizes amendments would not have been ratified by the citizenry and thereby would not exist until the first ten amendments were included as an integral part of the constitution. That being said, the Eleventh Amendment took away the power and choice of the citizen to sue a state where they were not a resident citizen when that power existed under Article III, Section 2, Constitution of the United States of America, and when a referendum vote did not occur within the requisite number of states for ratification of the Eleventh Amendment and none was needed for the Tenth Amendment.

12. Now it has been and may be argued that the legislature in a requisite number of states could speak for their citizenry in favor of an amendment sufficient to justify ratification; however, neither option is granted by any state constitution, for example:

a. Every state constitution contains an article describing the exact territorial boundary of

the state. All laws enacted by the legislature of a state apply only internally of that particular state. The only time that the legislature of a given state may communicate on behalf of the citizenry of that state is while the legislature is in session when a riot, rebellion, or insurrection is active within the state beyond the control of existing state authority. See state constitutions.

b. The Governor, however, has authority to communicate on behalf of the citizenry in

case it is invaded and the invasion cannot be suppressed; the Governor, in case of an active rebellion, riot, or insurrection beyond the Governor’s control, may communicate outside the state should the legislature not be in session. There are no powers or authorities, at any other time, for a government entity of a state to communicate with any other political entity on behalf of the citizenry of the state without a favorable referendum vote. See Ninth and Tenth Amendments.

c. Note the state government does not possess and does not own the citizenry of the state, and neither does the federal government; the state and federal government’s only exercise control of the citizenry within their sphere of power granted by that citizenry in the respective constitutions or by their favorable referendum vote on a constitutional amendment. Ibid.

d. There is no prohibition against the President or the Congress communicating as

separate entities to the states; but; a subdivision of either is not permitted to communicate with any of the state governments at their own choosing; however, the states may receive communications directly from Congress on proposed amendments.

13. Thus, the Thirteenth Amendment altered the power of the Eleventh Amendment which amendment was authenticated only by the requisite number of state governments as separate political entities under their power reserved for them in the Tenth Amendment. The Eleventh Amendment without a referendum vote of the citizenry denies its application to the citizenry. The State approval is for the state government and is not on behalf of the citizenry therein except with a favorable referendum vote.


14. The Sixteenth Amendment irrevocably, but unconstitutionally, altered the power of the Thirteenth Amendment in that the Sixteenth permitted a tax on the labor possessed, owned, and controlled by an individual citizen, especially when that citizen, being a member of the national citizenry-at-large, is only controlled under power they expressly gave either the federal government or the state government in their respective state constitution by a referendum vote.

a. There exists a fundamental difference between the two amendments in that one was

created as a direct result of open hostilities between two regions of the United States of America and the other amendment was not. Neither the Thirteenth Amendment not the Sixteenth Amendment were ratified by the citizenry of a requisite number of states; however the succession of hostilities between one region of the Nation and the other resulted in the Thirteenth Amendment as a conclusion of hostilities which could qualify as a referendum vote of all citizens.

b. Thus the legitimacy of the Sixteenth Amendment is called into question for lack of

the requisite number of states’ referendum vote; its power to tax the labor of an individual member of the Nation’s citizenry must be void thereby; and since taxing the labor owned, possessed, and controlled by an individual citizen without his choice or consent constitutes a condition of involuntary servitude prohibited by the credible Thirteenth Amendment.

c.Incidentally, the Thirteenth Amendment also altered Article I, Section 8, Clause 1,

Constitution of the United States of America as it applied to taxing the labor of a private citizen member of the Nation’s citizenry in that doing so taxed the individual citizen under a condition of involuntary servitude without the citizen having a choice or consent for whom he labored in part. The ability to tax individual labor took away that choice for which the citizens labored without their consideration or consent and then threatened punishment for noncompliance.

15. Therefore, if a condition of involuntary servitude is prohibited and that prohibition occurred as the result of the succession of hostilities between all regions of the existing Nation, the Thirteenth Amendment has more validity than the Sixteenth Amendment and prevails when a question exists between the two.

16. Thus, the Sixteenth Amendment could not alter the power of the Thirteenth Amendment and the Thirteenth Amendment prevails when a question arises between the two amendments.


17. The federal judiciary decision rendering process in cases involving constitutional issues will likely amend or alter the meaning of the constitution without any constitutional power to do so. The best example of this anomaly can be seen in a review of a case named and numbered M’Culloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316, 4 L.Ed. 579, 4 Wheat. 316 (1819) and its justifying predecessor Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803).

a. Chief Justice Marshall decided that the U.S. Supreme Court justices had authority of

‘judicial review’ on constitutional questions because the justices were under oath to defend the constitution against all enemies, both foreign and domestic.

b. The argument seemed legally logical on the surface; however, it had no constitutional

basis. Marshall’s decision in M’Culloch came from a previous decision he made in Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803); thereby, the justices would have to understand the constitution by interpreting it in order to defend it. That argument was flawed in that the oath the justices took was in compliance with a federal statute which was subordinate to the constitution and could not amend constitution for the sake of a decision used to justify interpreting authority. The statute involved, incidentally, gave effect to Article VI, Clause 3, Constitution of the United States of America in they had to be bound by their oath to support the constitution, not alter it for egocentric purposes; adherence only to the powers granted the court in the constitution was the fundamental requirement. Judicial review of the constitution was not included in the power granted by the Constitution to Judicial Department; their lot is interpreting the laws enacted by Congress to settle disputes brought before it, and the treaties ratified by the Senate, however, only to settle disputes created thereby.

c. As such, the statute relied upon was subordinate to the constitution, it did not and

could not grant a constitutional power to any department of government, and it could not amend the constitution to permit the justices power or authority to interpret the constitution contrary to the judicial power granted to the court under provisions of Article III, Section 1 and 2, Constitution of the United States of America.

d. At this point in the argument, it is necessary to establish the difference between a

political decision and a judicial decision. A political decision provides a choice between two or more viable alternatives. A judicial decision does not ever provide a choice; the decision establishes whether one is in compliance with the law or treaty under consideration; and to do otherwise is to invade the political domain of Legislative or the Executive Department. It is noteworthy to reveal that judge decisions, both state and federal, often meander into the political domain with no constitutional power to do so.

e. Nevertheless and armed with the flawed decision of Marbury, Chief Justice Marshall

took the opportunity to interpret the ‘Necessary and Proper’ clause contained in Article I, Section 8, Clause 18, Constitution of the United States of America to justify his decision in M’Culloch.

f. The decision in M’Culloch at the end of page 419 revealed that the ‘Necessary and

Proper’ clause was placed in the powers of Congress, not in the limitations of those powers; the effect of the court decision combined the power of the Executive with the power of the Legislature into a single congressional power with no limitation except within the combined meaning of the combined phase. It is there where the decision became flawed and favorable to Congress to do everything it decided to do without bounds or the exercise of an Executive power... No challenge by Congress to that favorable decision on its behalf by the court has ever occurred.

g. Article II, Section 3, Constitution of the United States of America grants to the

President the power from time to time for addressing Congress to determine what laws the office thinks is necessary and expedient for the Nation. Once the President determines what is thought to be necessary and expedient for the operation of government and for the health, safety, and welfare of the citizenry, and then provides that determination to Congress; it then becomes incumbent upon Congress to survey its powers and limitations to determine whether to provide what the President thinks is necessary and expedient is also within a proper grant of power possessed by Congress. If so, the Congress must provide the President with the law thought necessary and expedient; if not proper, no law is provided. Maintaining the two powers separate significantly protects the interest of the citizenry-at-large, Supreme Court decisions to the contrary or amending the constitution, notwithstanding.

18. One has to consider what damage is done, if any there is, by the Marshall decision to combine the ‘Necessary and Proper’ clause into a single congressional power without any prior input by the President authorized by Article II of the Constitution. Could it be that the presidential veto might save the day?

a. Here is how the damage is induced. Today, Congress determines what laws it thinks

necessary and expedient, then determines whether, in its foresight, whether the laws are also proper within the envelop of its powers and limitations. Unfortunately, the combined power essentially eliminates the need for an executive except to faithfully execute the laws enacted by Congress, whether good or bad. In the latter case, the Executive Department, and hence the President, would then be subordinate to the Congress which is contrary to the Separation of Powers Doctrine created from within the constitution, and power grants in Sections 1 of Articles I and II.

b. Incidentally, the President is Chief Executive of the Nation; Congress possesses the

legislative powers of the United States Government, not the Nation. See the difference between the power grants by Article 1, Section 1 and Article II, Section 1, Constitution of the United States of America; one is a national power, the other a government power. Congress cannot exercise foreign power policy; the President can. The President is granted the executive power of the United States of America; Congress is only granted the legislative power of the United States, not the United States of America, See the Preamble for the difference. Therefore, the branches of the United States government are not equal; in point of fact, the Judicial Department is even more limited in that it is only granted powers under, not in, the Constitution of the United States of America, as stated in Article III, Sections 1 and 2 thereof.

c. The M’Culloch unconstitutional decision remains in effect today and has done so

since 1819. Just think of the numerous laws enacted by Congress and initiated by it without the President exercising the Article II power declaring them to be necessary and expedient. By signing them into law, he may declare them to be necessary by default; however, that is not an original constitutional power grant of intent. The combination of the executive and congressional power into a single power of Congress - powers which were meant to be separate and independent, unique to different branches of the government, and kept separate as a limitation on the exercise of government powers – degraded the integrity of the constitution immeasurably. The combination has overcome the purpose of the congressional limitations, the combination has unbridled the limitations on the exercise of congressional powers; and the combination has become detrimental to the interest of the citizenry-at-large.

d. The Stare Decisis Doctrine, the adherence to precedent where possible, allows for

errors in judicial decisions to propagate readily through the government especially where one branch has an increase in its power with the support of the second branch at the expense of the third branch. One result is the subjugation of the national citizenry-at-large, possession and control of their course of conduct which becomes a status of involuntary servitude without viable choices.

e. Consider the fact that a group of attorneys provide arguments to the justices of the

Supreme Court in matters the court considers. The decisions rendered in that court are binding on all federal courts; they may not be binding on the states. Yet, state courts ignore their own constitutions and honor the decisions of the Supreme Court; the citizenry-at-large, and their powers reserved for to them by the Tenth Amendment, be dammed. Decisions based upon the argument of a group of statutory attorneys usurp the power of the citizenry-at-large, a sovereign power, to satisfy disputes between two or more parties which likely does not even consider the citizens’ Tenth Amendment power. Such decisions apply only to the parties involved, not the citizenry at-large.